{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_56095/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_56095","id":"gutenberg_56095","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56095","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Civilization","Progress"],"text":"JANUS IN MODERN LIFE\n\n\n\n\n                                 JANUS\n                                  IN\n                              MODERN LIFE\n\n                                  BY\n                         W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE\n                  D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.B.A., &c.\n\n              _Fools only learn by their own experience,\n             Wise men learn by the experience of others._\n\n                                LONDON:\n                    ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO. LTD.\n                10 ORANGE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE W.C.\n                                 1907.\n\n\n\n\n\"There are two roads to reformation for mankind\u2014one through\nmisfortunes of their own, the other through those of others; the former\nis the more unmistakable, the latter the less painful.... For it is\nhistory, and history alone, which, without involving us in actual\ndanger, will mature our judgment, and prepare us to take right views,\nwhatever may be the crisis or the posture of affairs.\"\n\n  POLYBIUS.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThese papers essay an understanding of some of the various principles\nwhich underlie the course of political movements in the present age.\nThere is no attempt at introducing any considerations which are\nnot familiar to every intelligent person, nor any comparisons with\nother instances which are not already well known in history. Why\nconsiderations which seem so obvious when stated, should yet not be\nfamiliar, may perhaps be due to the estrangement between science and\ncorporate life, which is an unhappy feature of a time of transition\nboth in education and in motives.\n\nThe point of view here is that of public and general conditions and\nnot of private variations of beliefs. Such moral factors, though\nall important to the individual, are not so much the subject of\nthe direct physical causes and effects which are here considered.\nSimilarly the beneficial result of private benevolence is not added\nto these considerations, because it is largely outside of the effects\nof conduct, and finds its good in amending or neutralising the evil\nconsequences of various actions. It will always have its scope, but in\nopposition to, rather than in concert with, the direct effects which we\nare here to consider.\n\nToo often the objections to various new views are based upon some\nsentiment of one party, rather than upon the reason which is common to\nall parties. Here, on the contrary, the aim is to consider the natural\nconsequences of various actions, apart from personal opinion, and\ntherefore on a common ground which all readers can equally accept.\n\nThe position of a partisan or an advocate has been avoided so far as\npossible. No doubt to many of the statements and deductions here, one\nparty or another would cry, Anathema. As a whole the results are more\nin accord with Individualism than with Collectivism; but an attempt\nis made to trace what are the limits of a Collectivism that may not\ninvolve deleterious consequences. It may seem a fault to many minds\nthat no cut and dried definite system or course of action is advocated;\nmany people prefer a medicine which is guaranteed to relieve all\ntheir complaints, instead of a physiological research on the obscure\ncauses of their troubles. But, if we are to advance, we must study\nthe diseases of bodies politic with the same disinterestedness, and\nsomewhat of the same unfeeling temper, as that of the physiologist in\ndealing with \"animated nature.\" Such a line of study will be useless\nto the politician, so long as he is an opportunist or a placeman;\nand useless to the socialist, so long as he refuses to learn by the\nexperience of others.\n\nThe present time seems to most people so infinitely more important\nto them than the past or future, that they are impatient at the\nintroduction of comparisons which seem to reflect upon their immediate\njudgment, or of anticipations which would check their present\ngratification. They forget that it is only a fiction to speak of the\npresent, an infinitely thin division between what has been and that\nwhich will be. Every step of the past has been a present, living,\nurgent, imperative, to the whole world; and every such present has\nbeen entirely conditioned by its past, just as the future to us is\nconditioned by our present. If any race now cares to learn somewhat\nfrom its own past, and that of others, it may benefit its own future;\nif it prefers a blind selfishness, a better race will be welcomed to\nits place.\n\nJanus, who looked to the past and to the future, was the god whose\ntemple stood always open during war, that he might bring peace upon\nearth. And in our day it is only the view of the past and the future\nwhich can warn us of evils to come, and save us from violence and\nconfusion.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  PREFACE                                                              v\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n  CHARACTER, THE BASIS OF SOCIETY.\n\n  Production of character the most important object, p. 1. The\n  known conditions of physical variation, p. 2. Mental equivalents\n  of physical variation in (1) benefits of ability, p. 4; (2)\n  Inheritance, p. 4; (3) Artificial increase of variation, p. 5;\n  (4) Excitement of variation, p. 6; (5) Gain by use, p. 6;\n  (6) Loss by atrophy, p. 7; (7) Variation made permanent by\n  competition, p. 10. Immutability of general type, physical and\n  mental, p. 11.\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n  PRESENT CHANGES OF CHARACTER.\n\n  Loss of national character by emigration, p. 13; by promotion\n  of sloth, p. 16. Lack of adaptability, p. 16. Low type of\n  public pleasure, p. 17. Repression of character by communism,\n  p. 20. Conditions of successful communism, p. 20. Communism\n  in early Christianity, p. 23. Intense competition\n  among herbivora, p. 25. Communism fatalistic, p. 26.\n  Destruction of character by municipal communism, p. 26.\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n  TRADE UNIONISM, ITS FLOWER AND FRUITION.\n\n  Town influence in Rome, p. 28. Decay of the country, p. 29.\n  Growth of trade unions, p. 30. Trade unions compulsory, p. 30.\n  Cheap production for the proletariat, p. 32. Sharing of proletariat\n  burden by a trade, p. 32. All property hypothecated to\n  the Trade Unions, p. 33. The social burden the destruction of\n  Rome, p. 34. The growth of the little-Italy party, p. 35. Devolution\n  of government, p. 36. The state regulation of prices and\n  wages, p. 37.\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n  REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION?\n\n  Great effects best produced by small causes, p. 40. Revolution\n  leads to greater tyranny, p. 40; also leads to military\n  despotism, p. 41. Radical changes show ignorance, p. 42.\n  Scope to be allowed for gradual change, p. 43. Variability\n  tolerated by bye-laws, p. 44. Effects of small changes as seen\n  in Death Duties and reduced colonising power, p. 44. Income\n  tax and expulsion of trade, p. 47; benefits of taxing extravagance,\n  p. 52; Irish tenant right, p. 53; high interest on loans,\n  p. 55; equalisation of land values, p. 56; growth of cities, p. 57.\n  Effect of workmen's compensation, p. 58; of old age pensions,\n  p. 59; of state help for children, p. 60. Effects of wealth in the\n  hands of different classes, p. 60.\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n  THE NEED OF DIVERSITY.\n\n  Variability needful for advance of a species, p. 65. Large\n  states a necessary result of rapid communication, p. 66. Diversity\n  needed therefore within the state, as well as between\n  states, p. 67. No moral obligation to uniformity, p. 67.\n  Separate states needed for a doubled-centred diversity, p. 70.\n  Diversity as yet remaining in marriage-law and custom, p. 71.\n  Society a mixture of many past stages of culture, p. 72. Present\n  education a bar to progress by diversity, p. 73. Need of diversity\n  in education, p. 75.\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n  LINES OF ADVANCE.\n\n  Personal initiative essential, p. 78. Prevention of waste the\n  main principle of advance, p. 79. Gain in health, p. 79. Gain\n  in amount of activities of life, p. 80. Gain in rapidity, p. 81.\n  Gain by working instead of playing, p. 81. Gain by saving\n  waste in renewal, p. 83. Gain by permanent marriage, p. 84.\n  Gain by high-tending of families, p. 85. Gain by improving or\n  weeding of bad stocks, p. 86. Gain by individualism, p. 89.\n  Gain by free combinations, p. 92. Gain by international\n  labour, p. 93. The meaning of war, by trade, by armament,\n  and by violence, p. 95. Improvement of checks, p. 99. The\n  ultimate type of states, p. 100. The ultimate type of man,\n  p. 101.\n\n\n  INDEX                                                              105\n\n\n\n\nJANUS IN MODERN LIFE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nCHARACTER, THE BASIS OF SOCIETY.\n\n\nIn considering or designing any kind of work the first and most\nessential condition is the quality of material that has to be used.\n\"You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.\" And what is\ntrue materially is true also mentally; the character of a people\nis the essential basis of all their institutions and government.\nIf we intend to consider what improvements are possible, or what\ndegradations may occur, we must treat the matter entirely as a question\nof character. \"For forms of Government let fools contest, whate'er\nis best administered is best,\" and the administration depends upon\nthe character of the people. We see on all sides that races of a\nlow character necessarily pass, by the force of events, under the\ndomination of other races who have a higher or stronger character. It\nis the quality of the race which is the most essential and determining\nfactor in its history. That every nation has the kind of government\nwhich it deserves, is an old remark, which implies that its character\ndetermines its fate. The diligent but cautious Scot; the slovenly\nSlovene; the self-deceived Gaul; the tediously complete and logical\nGerman; these all show the manner in which their administration is the\nproduct of the individual character. Further, happiness is essentially\ndependent upon character, and is\u2014by comparison\u2014determined by\ncharacter alone, almost apart from external circumstances.\n\nIt is therefore a matter of the first importance to consider how\ncharacter is produced or modified. Possibly to some it may appear\npresumptuous to apply to the mind those natural laws which it is\nnow generally agreed apply to bodily development. Yet even the\nprobabilities of chance distribution may be shown to apply to the\nvarieties of mind; both by rough observation in general, and also\nby a test case quantitatively applied (see _Religion and Conscience\nin Ancient Egypt_). A feeling against this treatment of the mind\nby material law is based on the idea that it implies an absence of\nfree-will. But, to take an illustration, a railway company may be\ncertain of carrying very closely the same number of passengers each\nday, without in the least embarrassing the free-will of any passenger\nas to whether or no he will travel. Let us notice, therefore, how\nthe various principles of physical modification are applicable also\nto mental change. Whether it may be that changes take place by the\ninheritance of acquired characteristics, or whether they occur solely\nby accidental variation which proves beneficial, is a much debated\nquestion which is not requisite for us to settle here. It is agreed\nthat in the physical life of all animals it may be seen that: (1)\nFavourable variations give a determining advantage to one individual\nover another, or to one more than another against a common enemy; (2)\nUseful variations tend to be maintained in successive generations;\n(3) Artificial conditions tend to produce variation; (4) Greater\nvariability accompanies unusual developments; (5) Growth is directed\nand encouraged by use; and (6), as the total activity is limited,\ntherefore disuse causes atrophy and degradation, by favouring of parts\nmore used. To these follows the important corollary (7): Variation\nbeing only of benefit where there is competition in which it gives an\nadvantage, its improvements will cease to be maintained in the absence\nof competition; it is only competition which makes improved variations\npermanent. For instance, if there were no carnivora the swifter deer\nwould not have found their pace a benefit, and there would be no\nsufficient cause for their attaining their present swiftness. In place\nof looking on selection as merely a struggle we must look on it as the\nsole physical means of permanent elevation, the motor which has raised\nevery species to its present point of ability.\n\nTo these principles common to all organic nature must be added another\nwhich is almost peculiar to man alone. We often hear that environment\nis the determinant of the nature of both animals and man. But the\ndistinctive quality of man is the subjection of the environment to the\nruling faculty; man is not necessarily conditioned by his environment,\nbut a direct measure of his civilisation is the extent to which he\ncreates his own conditions. Other communal animals, as the ant, the\nbee, or the beaver, have anticipated this to some extent; but in man\nalone can the ruling faculty rise to an entire reversal of almost\nevery condition of environment.\n\nThe mental equivalents of these physical modifications are obviously\ntrue in common experience and in historical example.\n\n(1) That a favourable variation of mind gives a determining advantage\nneeds no illustration, as every sharp and able man of business has\nshown this in all ages.\n\n(2) That mental qualities are inherited has been pretty generally\nrecognised, and the work of Galton on Hereditary Genius has enforced\nthis by statistical example. But the historical consequences have not\nbeen sufficiently noticed; for it is obviously possible by selective\naction to increase or diminish not only the bodily activity but\nalso the mental ability seen in the whole community. The series of\nproscriptions of all the leading men of Rome, alternately on one side\nand then on the other, from Marius down to Octavius, was so disastrous\na drain of political ability, that only the Julian family was left; and\nthere was never an able emperor of Roman ancestry after that line was\nextinct. The expulsion of the Huguenots from France drained it of the\nactive middle class minds, and left the great gap in the continuity of\nsympathy which made the Revolution possible. The later expulsion or\nextermination also of the active upper class minds drained that land of\nnearly all the hereditary ability of the race: the consequence has been\nto leave at the present day a nation of mediocrities, among whom there\nis but a fraction of the genius seen in Germany and England on either\nside of it. Almost every leading name is that of a foreigner, as for\ninstance Waddington, Zurlinden, Eiffel, Reinach, Rothschild, Gambetta,\nMaspero. Another very important consideration is that sporadic ability\nis not inherited in the same manner as long continued family ability.\nNot a single Roman Emperor who rose solely from his individual powers\nleft a worthy and capable son. The Gordians were a good senatorial\nfamily, and ran through three generations on the throne. In England\nthe same thing is seen. The main source of new men of ability is from\nsturdy Puritan or Quaker stocks that have long practised self-denial\nand hard work; old families with long traditions of public service\ncontinue usually on the same line of ability; but the _nouveaux riches_\nwho have sprung forward on some lucky speculation or trade enterprise\nusually go hopelessly to pieces in the next generation. The longer a\nuseful type has been maintained the more stable it is.\n\n(3) That artificial conditions tend to produce variation is obvious\nin every civilisation. The more intense is the artificiality of life,\nthe greater are the extremes of ability and incompetence, of riches\nand poverty, accompanying it. It is often a problem to kind hearts\nthat there should be such misery and degradation side by side with the\nease and welfare of civilisation. The answer is that it is inevitable,\nbecause the very same artificiality which gives scope to the capable\nto rise, equally gives scope for the incapable to fall. Every chance,\nevery opening, every benefit attainable by exertion, is a means of\nadvance to him who uses it; but it is accompanied by equal chances of\nfailure, equal openings to loss, equal injuries resulting from sloth,\nwhich are the equally sure means of degradation for those who have\nnot the wit or energy to avoid them. The \"submerged tenth\" is the\ninevitable complement of the leading tenth.\n\n(4) Greater variability of mind accompanies unusual development;\nthis is seen in the great outbursts of mental activity which have\noccurred along with external expansion in the times of Elizabeth and of\nVictoria. Or in earlier times the growth of Greek literature following\nthe Periclean expansion, or of Roman literature with the Augustan\nsettlement of the world.\n\n(5) Mental growth is directed and encouraged by use. This fact is so\nobvious that it is proverbial, as in the saying, \"The mind grows by\nwhat it feeds upon.\" All mental training and teaching recognise this,\nbut it is true in later life as well as in youth. It is well known\nhow in the least civilised races small children are as advanced\u2014or\nmore so\u2014than in higher races. The Australian is said to come to a\nstandstill at ten or twelve years old. The Egyptian seldom advances\nmentally after sixteen. A low-class Englishman does not improve after\ntwenty or so. A capable man will continue to expand till thirty or\nforty. And the man of the greatest capacity will continue to grow\nmentally, and assimilate new lines of thought, until seventy or eighty.\n\nThus the greater the power of use and the activity of the mind, the\nlonger will it continue to grow. This may well be regarded as one of\nthe main tests of a great mind; and it is strictly in accord with the\nsystem of the well-known embryonic changes passing from lower to higher\nstages, and continuing to grow in development into higher and higher\ntypes. The savage ceased to grow mentally even while in childhood; the\nsage continues the expansion of mind to extreme old age.\n\n(6) Disuse of mind causes atrophy and degradation. This principle\nis one of the most important of all in its practical bearings. The\nfamiliar figure of the later Merovings, the _rois fain\u00e9ants_, is\nan historical example: freed from all necessity of thought by the\nassiduity of the mayors of the palace, the family mind atrophied\nfurther in each generation, until the king became a puppet without\nvolition in royal affairs. The same working may be seen in the\nupper classes of many countries, where the spur of the necessity\nof action ceases. Within a century of the cessation of the Moorish\nwars the chivalry of Spain began to atrophy; the same was seen in a\ncentury after the cessation of civil war in France. In England the\nstrong tradition of training for the public careers in the civil and\nmilitary services and parliament, has saved the upper classes more\nthan elsewhere. But a rich family without active interests almost\nalways shows atrophy of mind. There is a fine saying of Mencius,\n\"Those whom God destines for some great part, He first chastens by\nsuffering and toil.\" The same tendency to atrophy is equally seen in\nthe lower classes, when the necessity of self-help is removed. And many\nof the modern movements have been of a degrading tendency, leading\nto the holding back of the capable and the artificial help of the\nincapable. It is obvious that if persons have retrograded and got into\ndifficulties, they are presumably less capable than those around them.\nIf then they are relieved independently of their own exertions, their\nincapacity is fostered and they retrograde still further. To compensate\nthem for their incapacity by relief works, by farm colonies, by outdoor\nrelief doles, by maintenance of their children, will inevitably lead\nto further atrophy of mind. The doctrine of equality of wages in a\ntrade is a double injury, it encourages the most incapable man that can\npossibly squeeze into the trade, and it discourages the capable man who\nis worth far more than the average. It must tend to drive capable men\nout of the trades which they might have raised by their example and\nstimulus, into other lines where capacity can still earn its value.\nThe mental atrophy that has come over ordinary workmen is appalling,\nat least in the region of London. In case after case, the common sense\nand intelligence seems to have been entirely lost, and the grossest\nblunders will be made by well-paid men; and it is safe to say that in\nmost business a really capable and active man can do from three to six\ntimes as much as the average workman, beside avoiding the loss of time\nby mistakes. In short a certified ease of conditions, and absence of\ndirect penalties of incapacity, has atrophied the ordinary working mind\nto a point which is dangerously low in comparison with that of other\nraces. The remedy lies in training the incapable by a stern discipline\nof gradually teaching them the maximum that they can perform in the\nday, with good direction and avoidance of bad conditions. After a\ncouple of years of such intensive training they should be drafted into\nordinary factories, with the warning that if they fall out of work\nagain, another year's compulsory hard training will be the result.\n\nIn another way this atrophy of mind may be seen and felt as a temporary\ncondition by members of boards and committees. What is everyone's\nbusiness is nobody's business; and when each person feels that he is\nnot personally responsible, a numbness and inaction ensues which is\ncharacteristic of such bodies. Men, any one of whom would act sensibly\nwhen alone, will succumb to the paralysing sense that they need not\nthink because nine other men are doing so, and the results are well\nknown as characterising these assemblies which have \"neither a body to\nbe kicked nor a soul to be damned.\" There are very few public bodies\nwhich are not really dependent on the individual thought and design of\none person, criticised and amended by the collateral views of others.\nIn short, all action and rule must be personal and not corporate,\nhowever much the person may be checked and controlled by general\nopinion of the public, or of a restricted body. Without personal\ninitiative atrophy is the result.\n\nAnother great theatre of mental atrophy is officialism, where a man\nis bound to follow certain rules and routine rather than to think.\nA German has remarked to me that a man who is perfectly reasonable\nand intelligent in private life becomes quite foolish as soon as he\nenters his office. This constant result is the strongest reason for not\nextending official control of affairs needlessly, or the management\nof public work by officials. Private enterprise will always be more\neffective than an official system, because it is solely the result of\nindividual initiative. The enormous monopolies of railways in England\nare on the whole far more beneficial to the public than the State\nrailways of other countries. The evils of corporate monopoly, checked\nby law and supervision of the Board of Trade, are less than the evil of\nstagnation by official atrophy. In the Republic of France the principal\nline runs its best trains slower than, and at three times the cost of,\nthe best trains on great English lines.\n\n(7) It is only competition which makes permanent the improved mental\nvariations which occur. The evils of competition in physical things\nalmost disappear in the mental field; and, unless misused as in a\nfoolishly designed examination, there seems an unmixed benefit from\nunlimited competition of mind. It is only by such competition that\nhigher types of ability have been established in the past, and it is\nto such that we must look for future improvement. It is true that in\nvarious directions we find a dislike of competition; but that is the\nsurest sign that it is effective, and therefore beneficial to the whole\nbody.\n\nWe see then that each of those principles which rule in physical\nmodification is equally true of mental modification.\n\nBut though the modes of mental variation may be fairly clear, we\nmust not be carried away by the view that therefore great changes in\nman are to be expected. The effects of various conditions upon the\nbody are tolerably familiar, yet the average form of man has varied\nextraordinarily little during ten thousand years. The highest type\nof ancient man differs almost inappreciably from the highest type of\nmodern man, certainly by not a tenth of the difference that may be seen\nbetween different types at present. It may be practically said that man\nis at a standstill in physical development. Sanitary improvements and\nbetter feeding may do great things, but they leave the essential form\nand constitution unaltered. The same is true of mind. When we become\nfamiliar with details of early ages nothing is more astonishing than\nto see how unaltered the mind of man is in its essentials. In tales\nand maxims six thousand years old we see not only the common stock of\nprimary instincts, but also the _finesse_ of conduct in public life,\nthe modes of ensuring respect in dealing with superiors and inferiors,\nthe attention to very varied elements of character, and a fine suavity\nand kindliness pervading the whole. There is not a single class or a\nsingle public body at present that practically stands as high as the\nideal of two hundred generations ago. And when we look at the material\ncivilisation we see still farther back the appreciation of qualities of\nwork which only a very small proportion of mankind care for now. The\noverwhelming zeal for minute accuracy was as perfect a mental state at\n4700 B.C. as it is in a Royal Society paper of our day. The subject\nand the method have changed; but the mental attitude is the same in a\nman who demanded, and in those who executed, beautifully true plane\nsurfaces, and long measurements exact to far within the variation of\nsize caused by a hot or a cold day, and the men now who triangulate\na continent and measure the world. The mind is the same, only the\nstock-in-trade of it has increased. At the beginning of history the\npalaces were adorned with table services cut in the hardest and most\nbeautiful stones, exquisitely formed and polished; and such homes\nwere assuredly inhabited by men whose tastes and artistic sense were\nclosely the same as the best of ours, and who would, like us, have\nrevolted at most of the products of the present time. Not only was\nthere the body of highly skilled and intelligent men to do such work,\nbut there must have been a widely spread standard of taste demanding\nthis exquisite work as an aesthetic pleasure. The nature of mind is\nunchanged, its motives, its feelings, its sense of life; only in\nknowledge and the applications of it do we differ from the earliest\ncivilisation that we can trace.\n\nIt is, therefore, quite unreal for us to anticipate any change in the\nessential nature of man in the next few thousand years. The increase\nof knowledge and its applications will not alter that nature, or the\nrelation of mind to mind. We shall still desire and admire the same\nthings, and be moved by the same impulses; and we may neglect as\nignorant dreams all speculations about any essential changes in the\nmotives or constitution of man.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPRESENT CHANGES OF CHARACTER.\n\n\nHaving now seen how the fluctuations of amendment or deterioration\nof character, are subject to the same common laws as those of the\nvariation of physical structure, we are in a position to see more\nclearly the effect of gradual changes around us in England. Emigration\nhas been very active in the past three generations, and immigration has\nrecently become important. The loss of the earliest emigrants who moved\nfor religious and political reasons affected the national character\nvery little; there was plenty of solid character remaining in England,\nand the removal of the more disputatious elements gave added strength\nto those who continued at home. The compulsory emigration of convicts\nwas similarly a gain by removing those who were most out of harmony\nwith the majority. Happily those whose characters made it most irksome\nto them to comply with the legal formulae of life at home, were just\nthose best suited for the type of a new country, less restrained and\nmore varied, with greater scope for enterprise. So far there had been\na gain by removal of the two extreme types. But then succeeded a most\nserious movement of the voluntary selection of persons who thought that\ntheir energies would have a better and more remunerative scope in the\ncolonies. This implied a draining away of those who had intelligence\nto choose a more promising career, energy to break with their\npresent life and start afresh, and who possessed most adaptability,\nself-reliance, and hopefulness. All of these qualities are greatly\nneeded at home for a prosperous population; and the incessant natural\nselection from the general mass, and removal of those who had most\nof such qualities, must have produced a serious effect on the home\npopulation. We see in England undoubtedly a lessening of sturdiness\nas a whole, and the deficiency of the abilities which have been most\nexported. There is a general outcry about the lack of adaptability in\nbusiness; and the general want of self-reliance is shown by all the\ngrandmotherly legislation which is sought and granted. At first we\nsucceeded in getting rid of some amount of less desirable stock along\nwith the capable stock; but in later years most countries will not\nadmit any but good stock, and we lose the valuable examples of national\ncharacter without any compensation. The drain of capacity from the\nnation is a most serious feature of life in England; and how far the\nprominence of the \"submerged tenth,\" and the large proportion who live\nonly a week's remove from starvation, is due to the lowering of the\nstandard of capacity by the emigration of the more capable, is a very\nimportant question. The same consideration applies to Ireland in a far\nmore acute form, as the emigration has been of much larger proportions.\n\nA large immigration into England has recently grown up. So far as this\nis of more energetic men, who see their way to win over our heads,\nthey should be welcomed. The German who comes to England to establish\nfactories and exploit the English market is at least a gain to the\ncountry, as it is far better he should do this in England rather than\nexpend all that energy and management out of England. The trade and\nmanufacture of England have been largely built up by immigrations of\nFlemings, Huguenots, Dutch, French, and now Germans, who have each\ncontributed to our capacity for work. In commercial business the\nforeign influence is strong. In north-west London one-tenth of the\nprivate residents are of German origin. A movement is going on quite\ncomparable to other great race movements of past history; but it only\naffects the upper classes, and not the hand-labourer. Beside this there\nis the large movement of the lowest and most depressed mass of European\nhumanity, from the sink of poverty in Poland and Western Russia. It is\nessentially a bad stock, one of the lowest in Europe; and the large\nproportion of criminal cases arising among these immigrants shows how\nundesirable they are. To allow such a low type free settlement in\nEngland, after draining the capable Englishmen to the colonies, makes a\nserious danger of a national collapse under a sudden pressure of some\nnew circumstances, which might arise by trade or warfare.\n\nSome other consequences which flow from recent changes will be dealt\nwith in the fourth chapter in considering the effects of small causes.\n\nThe low type of character prevailing in all classes in England at\npresent needs to be fully recognised. No doubt there has been in\npast centuries more external coarseness, and this detail strikes the\nattention of many people because it differs from their own present\nconvention. But mere directness and plainness of speech is quite\nimmaterial compared with the essentials of working power of mind and\nbody, and the capacity for intelligent interests. Some centuries ago,\nwhen men thought more about the quality of their actions, sloth was\nranked as one of the seven deadly sins. But now, in place of regarding\nit as anything wrong, there is an elaborate system of compulsory sloth;\nit is enforced by heavy penalties, and drilled into the character by\nexample and self-interest. One man is forbidden to lay more than three\nhundred bricks a day, another forbidden to make more than so many glass\ndishes, another forbidden to attend to more than one machine. In every\ntrade where a selfish short-sighted policy has gained its way, there\nis this system, which is doing inconceivable harm to character. The\ncompulsory glorification of sloth is the most deleterious misfortune\nthat can happen to a nation. The wreck of wars, pestilence and famine,\nwill leave a more hopeful prospect than that of a people sunk in\norganised sloth.\n\nConnected with this is the strange lack of thought and adaptability in\ncommon matters of everyday life. The daily loss of time, and cost in\ntrivial matters, which affects thousands of persons, makes a heavy tax\non the whole. For instance, such a simple matter as putting the offices\nof a terminal station at the ends of the platforms is still ignored\nat many termini; the name of a station is often hard to find, and is\nnever once put up in most termini; the price of a ticket is often not\nto be discovered; the right types of carriages are only now being\ntried, after persevering in a wrong form for two generations. In the\nstreets the same lack of sense is seen in the immense omnibus system,\nwhich is difficult to use, especially for strangers, owing to the lack\nof numbered routes and conveyances. It has been officially decided\nthat the numbering of routes and omnibuses is beyond the powers of\nthe London County Council; and we must be compensated by the pleasing\nreflection that something at least is too hard for that body. The\nthoughtless edict however was enforced that every vehicle must carry a\nwhite light in front, and all the distinctive colours of the tram-car\nlights were abolished, causing great inconvenience at night. Even in\nthe most recent appliances the same dulness is shown; electric fans\nare commonly placed where they only stir foul air, and not where they\ndraw in fresh or expel used air. The whole lighting system still throws\naway two thirds of all its cost by lighting sky and walls as much as\nstreets. In every direction it seems hard to believe that five minutes'\nthought has been given to matters costing thousands of pounds. If we\ntraced such a mixture of design and of chance in any other subject it\nwould lead to some curious speculations on the implied limitations of\nthe directing Intellect. And in private matters it is the same; the\nextraordinary blunders and oversights in common trade work show that\nthe most obvious details have not had a minute's real thought given\nto their arrangement. The result is an accumulation of difficulty and\nmuddle which cripples, if not destroys, the purpose of the work. This\npersistent dulness, and incapacity for management and design, shows a\ndefect of character which is a heavy detriment to the whole community.\n\nThe pleasures of the public show the same low type as their business.\nThe illustrated papers that are read, apart from serious news, are a\nrevelation of the vacuity of the public mind, as the advertisements\nare a testimony to its imbecility. The absence of any thoughts or\ninformation that can enlarge the mind, or give it fresh insight or\nunderstanding, and the fatuity of the illustrations, show the helpless\nlittle round of common ideas of the well-to-do classes: while the\ndishing up of legal filth for the lower classes, and the morbid love of\ntrivial accidents and catastrophes, shows terribly the mere animalism\nwhich fills their horizon. The one subject on which most print is spent\nis that which is absolutely futile, sport and games. Whether one group\nof men, selected by mere accident, is a minute trifle more active than\nanother accidental group, is a matter of such utter insignificance that\nit would seem impossible to suppose that anyone would turn the head to\nsee the result decided. Yet such questions absorb most of the interests\nand spare thoughts and reading of a great part\u2014perhaps the greater\npart\u2014of the population, just as the races of the circus swamped all\nother interests of the decadent Roman. The results which they crave for\ncannot possibly mean anything to the present or to the future, as the\nselection is merely due to accidental causes. Even a lower depth is the\nrelative excellence of two horses which are completely unknown to the\npersons who speculate on them. The utter waste of thought and print in\nsuch interests is a form of insanity which is worse than a drug habit,\nas it implies a hopeless atrophy of the mind to interests which would\nhelp it or develop it.\n\nThe whole interest of betting on sport, and also of gambling, is\nanother evidence of an unwholesome condition. It implies a craving\nfor excitement apart from personal exertion, which is always a bane\nto character; it involves the idea of gain apart from labour of mind\nor body, which is demoralising to the sense of work; it results in\nunearned fluctuations, which induce a wasteful habit; and it is based\non the essentially ungentlemanly principle of benefiting by the loss\nof another, whereas all honourable gain is by the sharing of the\nbenefits of labour. If a large part of the public are determined on\ndeteriorating in this manner, it might be better for the community to\nsatisfy it by public lottery, where one party is the government, which\nat least removes the last-named serious detriment to character. The\ngaming at Monte Carlo is moral compared with promiscuous betting.\n\nThe objections to such forms of interest are perhaps too often urged by\nmoralists who wish to cause an alteration in the customs around them.\nEven if we can care for the benefit of persons with such interests,\ncertainly we are not likely to make any difference to them by talking\non the subject. But as students of diseased society we may take a deep\ninterest in such forms of aberration as a pathologist may in a case\nof cancer. And it is difficult to feel any particular wish to change\nhabits which so obviously belong to a bad stock that is hardly worth\nimproving. The best hope is that the unmitigated results of such mental\ndisease may quickly have full effect on the type, and result in its\nextermination before a better class or better race. So far as cure\nis possible, the most hopeful direction is by an increase of useful\nand beneficial interests, which will make such vapid and senseless\namusements decay by mere disgust.\n\nThe distaste for work and craving for amusement extends beyond the\nabove limits in a manner very deleterious to character. It is a feature\nof a decaying civilisation, as shown on the later Mykenaean frescoes,\nand the rage for the circus in later Roman times. Besides the waste of\ntime and labour, it acts injuriously in producing a restless incapable\ntype of mind, brought more forward lately in motoring; and also by\ncreating a false social atmosphere, in which the business of life is\ncontemned and treated as a drudgery, instead of being a main subject of\ninterest and emulation. As the shrewd Carl Peters remarks on English\nsociety, \"Nobody can fail to be struck by its utter recklessness and\nshallowness,\" and \"an increasing objection to labour is noticeable\nright through the British nation.\"\n\nThese various forms of a low type of character are on the increase, and\nit does not seem at all likely that they will be checked, except by\ngreat disasters which remove the less capable part of the population,\nand compel the rest to adopt a more energetic mode of life.\n\nAmong the various movements which are by some expected to benefit\ncharacter, the communistic ideals have enthusiastic support. But it\nmust be remembered that all such types of society tend to repress\nability. If any form of communism is to succeed there must be a fixed\nminimum of labour compulsory on each member; and it is certain that\nhuman nature will take the minimum limit as all that need be done. The\ntendency will be to drag down all energy to the speed of the weakest.\nMoreover, if there is to be any private _peculium_ outside of the share\nof common produce, the able man will at once rise into a capitalist; if\nno private _peculium_ is tolerated it is certain that ability will be\ndriven out to other lands, or to other lines of life where communism\ncannot be enforced. It must always be kept in view that mediocrity\nhates ability, wherever it comes into comparison or competition; and\nin a uniform community, mediocrity must be dominant, and ability\npersecuted.\n\nAgain the communistic type tends to repress variation and diversity\nby making everyone subject to the control of the dull average; and\nthis repression is most fatal to due advance by natural selection of\nbeneficial variation. We may see in France how a centralised management\nby the State accompanies the lack of enterprise in affairs. It is\nnotorious that in business the French will not spend freely on creating\nnew openings and encouraging new demand. Probably the habit of mind and\nthe type of government act and react by one intensifying the other.\n\nWhere we can study an actual working system of communism in such a\nclimate as our own, we see that it only succeeded by some elaborate\nand very forcible regulations. To outsiders, ignorant of the machine,\nthe less advanced states of society are generally supposed to be very\nsimple, and to leave a large amount of liberty. On the contrary,\nwhenever a barbaric or savage society is really understood, the\ncomplexity which is essential to its success is seen to be even greater\nthan among ourselves. The movement of society has been from an earlier\ncomplexity of special restriction, to a later generalised simplicity.\nThe whole of northern Europe appears to have had a very similar system\nof communal organisation, which has been mainly brought to light by the\nresearches of Dr. Seebohm. The peace was kept by making every relation\nof a man responsible for his actions; either wounding in any degree,\nor murder, had to be compounded for by fines extending even to distant\ncousins, which were payable to the similar relations of the injured\nor murdered man. The immediate male relatives, father, son, brother,\nand first cousin, were responsible for two-thirds of the blood money,\nand other relations to the fifteenth degree made up the remainder.\nThus the criminal law was communal in a full sense; and injuries were\nfully compensated in a manner which made every man his brother's keeper\nin a real communism. How would modern admirers of communism like to\nundertake the responsibilities of making up for the misdeeds of every\nrelative? Yet that is an essential part of communal duties.\n\nThe poor-law system, as revealed in the Norse laws, was that all\nthe poorer men were bound to do a certain amount of work for their\nchief, like the payment of taxes at present, which amounts now to\nmore than a month's work in the year. In return the chief was bound\nto see that they were insured against extreme-poverty or distress.\nThey were free to accumulate wealth if they had the ability to do so,\nbut their bargains and marriages had to be ratified by the chief in\norder to safeguard them from the follies of incapacity. When a man\nwished to resign this position of insurance against misfortune there\nwas no objection to his independence, and he could do so on paying\na small fee, and having a feast with the chief and witnesses. But if\nafter that he played the fool, and his family came to naught, no one\nwas responsible for them, as he had resigned his insurance. There\nwas but one course left, a wide grave in the churchyard received the\nwhole family alive, and only the one who survived longest had the\nright to live at the cost of his chief afterwards. Such was the price\nof communal support; and this decisive treatment, even in Christian\ntimes, ensured the sturdiness of the hardy Norseman, by effectively\nweeding the incapable. This was the practical working of the communal\nsystem which did not check ability, and which succeeded in our\nclimate in past times. It needed a fuller organisation of penalties\nand obligations than our present individualism; and whether any\ncommunism could permanently succeed with less compulsion may gravely\nbe doubted. In using the terms Socialism and Communism they are taken\nhere in their widest sense, as referring to all the courses opposed to\nindividualism. Such is the general usage of our language at present,\nand we cannot restrict these terms solely to extreme views, as some of\ntheir advocates would wish. Moreover, it is the influence of views on\npractical life that we are considering, and not an ideal state which\nnever has been realised, and probably never can be put in practice.\n\nA favourite idea has been that the New Testament teaching favours\ncommunism. To many such an authority would be decisive; and those who\nwould not accept it as authoritative, must consider that the teaching\nis at least that of men who had such an instinctive knowledge of human\nnature, and such sympathy with the springs of action, that their views\nhave held Western man more firmly than any other system. The first\npoint to notice in looking at the teaching, is that it was given to\na very severely selected group of persons. The early disciples were\none of the hardest-weeded bodies of men that ever existed, like the\nHuguenots or the Quakers; ready perception, hearty conscientiousness,\nand a will to do right at all costs were the first qualifications,\nand incessant persecution from various sides weeded out all those who\nhad no deep root of character. To such a body temporary communism was\nalmost a need of existence at starting; all the causes and characters\nwhich would ordinarily make it a failure were weeded out, and such a\nhighly selected group might safely benefit by a system which depended\non self-abnegation. But so soon as the Church spread, no trace of\ncommunism remained; and even in general altruism the injunctions\nreferred only to the Church and not to the world. The teaching was\n\"Bear ye one another's burdens\"; not, bear the burdens of the Roman\nrabble, but only those of the stringently weeded community. The one\nsaying which survived most strongly of all the Gospel teaching, and is\nrepeated oftenest, is, \"To him that hath shall be given, and from him\nthat hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have.\"\nThe full benefit of capacity and its utmost gains, and the direst\nlosses of incapacity, are the main principle that is inculcated.\n\nIn another point of view the parable of the prodigal son is sometimes\nfelt to inculcate the ignoring of failure in life, and the permitting\nof follies to have no effect on the position of a person. The prodigal\nson among us is too often allowed to go on draining the resources on\nwhich his brethren rightfully have a claim. But the father in the\nparable, who had divided the family property already, was not intending\nto give anything more to the prodigal, however penitent he might be;\nforgiveness might be his, but the other brother was reassured at once\nby the formal declaration, \"All that I have is thine.\" The greatest\npenitence, and the fullest forgiveness after it, will not give the\nprodigal a farthing beyond those rights which he has already misused.\n\nAnother appeal has been made, to a comparison with nature, in favour of\ncommunism. It is asked why we should be struggling like the carnivora,\ninstead of peacefully browsing in amity like herbivora. But it would\nbe hard to find a more intense example of competition than that among\nthe cattle. Look at the skeleton of a bull, and see how every rib is\nbroadened out into an armour plating for its vitals, each rib lapping\nover the other, so that no opening can be found for the point of its\nadversary's horn. None but those thus proof against goring have ever\nsurvived the desperate struggle of the strongest. In place of the\nartificial paddocks, where man has placed a single bull to lord the\nherd, look at the tragedy of the wild cattle, where the dispossessed\nchief of the Chillingham breed mopes apart in sullen anger, a Saturn\ndethroned and banished by the Jupiter who now leads the race. Then\nreflect how competition is more bitter and more intense in the bovine\ncommune than among any individualistic carnivora.\n\nThe communistic view appears to tend to fatalism. This is practically\nseen for instance in Tolstoi's _Peace and War_, where the gigantic\nmovements of the French and Russian hosts are looked on as inherent in\nthe millions of people, and not originating in the leaders. And the\nhabit of looking to the commune as the source of action will naturally\ntend toward a sense of the impossibility of altering the determination\nof a whole people, and the powerlessness of the individual against such\nforces. Now nothing more surely undermines activity and initiative than\na fatalistic view. It saps the whole springs of action, and destroys\nthe spirit of advance and improvement. In this aspect therefore we\nagain see how injurious the communistic ideal is to solid character.\n\nThe recent growth of \"municipalising\" enterprises is another outcome\nof this spirit. The principle of it seems to be to absorb any public\nbusiness which appears profitable, whether conveyance, supplies of\nmaterial, or contracting for public work. Apart from the fact that\nonly strong personal interest in management will make such enterprises\nprofitable, there is also the inherent objection to the bad management\nwhich clings to the atrophy of mind of officials, as such; but there is\nalso another serious influence upon character, which we should notice.\nThe energy and initiative needed to start and work improvements, which\nis the essential source of profit in business, is easily suppressed or\ndriven away. Many an enterprise which would succeed well is set aside\nbecause of the risks or the trouble of starting it, many another is\nleft alone owing to little deterring causes; and if the great incentive\nof the possibility of large profits on some schemes, to compensate for\nthe risks of many failures, is cut away by a municipality having the\nright of seizure of whatever succeeds, the whole enterprising character\nis cut down at the roots, to the immense injury of the nation at large.\nSupposing that some public enterprise makes 20 per cent. profit to its\nshareholders, the people who use it are certainly better off, or they\nwould leave it alone, and the profit is no loss to the community, as\nit merely means so much transferred from one pocket to another, and\nnone wasted. But if such enterprises are choked at the roots by fear\nof seizure, the whole community suffers. Who will care to develop\nsuburbs by starting electric trams when the whole can be seized in\ntwenty-one years, so soon as it begins to repay the risks incurred?\nThis short-sighted grasping system has held England back behind most\ncivilised countries, and been a gigantic public loss, not only by\nhindering specific enterprises, but more by thwarting most valuable\ncharacteristics.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTRADE UNIONISM, ITS FLOWER AND FRUITION.\n\n\nWhen we are continually assured that there is a new and better way of\ndoing anything, it is only reasonable to ask if anyone has tried it\nbefore. \"The proof of the pudding is in the eating,\" and if some one\nhas eaten such a pudding before us, we may be saved from using up good\nmaterials in a bad concoction. Until now the attention of historians\nhas been so fixed upon the great military autocracy of Rome, that the\ngrowth of trade unionism and socialism under that government has been\noverlooked. Here we will trace and put together such facts as seem\ncuriously parallel to the growth of modern unionism; and which, when\nthey outstep our present position, may serve to show what further\ndevelopments may be expected by us.\n\nThe first great step, which bore centuries of bitter results, was the\nfavouring of the townsman as against the countryman. The voter in Rome\ncould push laws to his own advantage in the hurly-burly of the public\nassembly, while the countryman was working hard in his furrow miles\naway. The conquered provinces were a great temptation; they had to\nyield tribute, grain came pouring into Rome, and why should not this\nabundance benefit the citizen by being sold at a low price? They forgot\nthe countryman. His toil was none the less because Carthage or Sicily\nor Egypt were being plundered. But his pay was much the less if his\nproduce lost its market value. The cheap corn of Gracchus was the knell\nof the honest agriculturist, as Professor Oman has pointed out. The\nonly remedy was to try to cheapen production in Italy. This was done by\ngiving up the small farmer altogether, and running only big estates by\nslave-labour, the human machine which was to Rome what machinery is to\nus. This staved off the evil somewhat. But soon the townsman demanded\nmore and more, and at last free doles of corn were given to him, and\nagriculture became impossible in Italy. What tribute-corn did to Italy,\ncheap transport has done to England. The townsman is always favoured\nat the cost of the countryman, and the country is being depopulated.\nNot only cheap bread, but doles of every kind\u2014hospitals, wash-houses,\nmusic, games, libraries\u2014all are given to the townsman, while the\ncountryman cannot possibly share in such doles. A large policy of\nequivalent benefits to the countryman would be the only corrective to\nthis one-sided and deleterious favouritism. But the votes carry it, as\nthey did in Rome.\n\nIn the earlier part of the second century, under Trajan, two little\nstatements show what was going on. A guild or trade union of firemen in\nAsia Minor wished to be incorporated: but the emperor forbade, because\nsuch trade guilds became political centres. There must have been\nsome experience of such movement for it to be anticipated. The other\nstatement is that the more able and wealthy men avoided entering the\nguild of permanent aldermen, or _curia_, because of the burdens which\nwere thrown upon them. A century later, about 230 A.D., all trades\nwere organised into corporations or trades unions, recognised by the\ngovernment, instead of being only private societies as before. This\nseems to have been a compulsory unionism; but there was some difference\nin class between this trades unionism and our own. In Rome the trades\nwere in the hands of smaller men, and not of large firms and companies\nas much as with us; and on the other hand the mere mechanic was\nusually a slave, this slave labour being economically the equivalent\nof machinery in our time. Hence the Roman trades unions were small\nemployers of the status of our plumbers or upholsterers, more than, as\nwith us, a large mass of crude labour organised against all capital.\nThey were trade unions, rather than unions of the mechanics as against\nthe managers. The compulsory entry of all the master employers into a\nunion would no doubt be a step very welcome to modern unionism; and the\ncompulsory extension of it, so as to leave no free labour, would be an\nideal condition, in which picketing would be quite superseded by legal\ncompulsion to join the union. The differences therefore were mainly\nsuch as our trades unions would desire, and aim at in future; in short\nunionism by 230 A.D. was more developed than it is at present with us.\n\nBut here came in a very difficult question, which is before us also\nwhenever unionism becomes dominant in any trade. It is all very well to\nlet unions pillage capital, or even pillage each other, but can they be\nallowed to pillage the poor? This at once clashes with the favouring of\nthe proletariat. It has already raised an acute difficulty in England.\nThe Bricklayers' Union cannot be competed with from abroad, except\nvery slightly by means of imported wooden houses. Hence this union\nhas been able to close its grip firmly on the throat of the public;\nit has raised wages, and it has cut down work from eight hundred or\nnine hundred bricks laid daily to two hundred and seventy or three\nhundred and thirty in different standards now. By raising the cost\nof labour to about three times the amount, the cost of building as a\nwhole must be nearly doubled. The dearness of lodging of the poor is\nreally due to the remorseless extortion of the bricklayers, abetted\nby the extravagant building regulations locally in force in their\ninterest, to increase the expenditure on a building. In the country\nthere is disgraceful overcrowding for lack of cottage accommodation,\nand in towns miserable rooms fetch high rents. The ground-landlord,\nwho is so much abused, has little to do with this; for ground-rents\nare seldom more than a tenth of the house rent and taxes. If all land\nwere confiscated to-morrow it would not lower most rentals more than a\nfraction. If the Bricklayers' Union and all its results were abolished,\nrentals would descend to nearly half the present amounts.\n\nIf we were to meet this difficulty in the way that Rome dealt with it,\nthe Government would give the Bricklayers' Union an absolute monopoly\nof building, on condition that dwellings under a certain value were\ncharged at a third of the cost of labour, that is on the old terms of a\nfull day's work fifty years ago, leaving all later profits to be gained\nfrom the wealthier classes. In the present straits about housing it is\nby no means certain that this would not be a popular course.\n\nIn Rome the grain importers and the bakers were the two trades\nwhich touched the proletariat most closely. And early in the third\ncentury these, and probably other essential trades, were organised\nas monopolist unions, on condition that the union was bound over to\ndo a certain amount of work for the poor at a nominal rate. Thus the\nwastrel was favoured and protected, with his right to maintenance;\nand all profits of the business were to be made from work done for\nthose who could afford to pay for it. This is unquestionably an ideal\ntoward which a great deal of social legislation is tending at present.\nRailway companies and tramways are bound to carry workmen at nominal\nrates, while all their profits are to be earned from wealth. So far has\nthis burden been imposed, that the construction of one railway line at\nleast has been prevented by the heavy toll of cheap transport which was\ndemanded before sanctioning it.\n\nIf the trade is not in the hands of a single firm for a whole district,\nlike a railway company, there arises the problem, how is the burden\nof cheap work for the poor to be distributed over the constituent\nfirms? This was solved in Rome by the union, which was the sole body\nrecognised in law. Each member of the union was assessed by his union,\non the basis of both his capital and his trade returns, and he had to\ndo so much of the cheap work in proportion. Hence the wealth of each\nfirm determined the amount of their proletariat taxation. If they could\nwithdraw temporarily part of the capital from the business, their\nassessment would be lighter. Hence to each person the aim was to work\nwith the smallest amount of capital, and to remove from the business\nall spare capital, and invest it elsewhere. This naturally resulted in\nbusiness being badly worked. The difficulty was met by the law that\nall capital once in the business could never be withdrawn; and all\nprofits\u2014and, later, all acquired wealth\u2014must be kept in the business,\nso that the richer firms should do their full share of proletariat\nservice. The results of these logical developments of unionism and help\nto the proletariat, were that many withdrew altogether from unions,\nretiring on a small competence rather than live under such a burden,\nand that there was a general decline of commerce and of industry.\n\nProperty having thus become the gauge of responsibility in the union,\nthe only way to prevent desertions was to declare that the property\nwas attached to the union permanently, and whosoever acquired it did\nso under the implied covenant of supplying the share of union work out\nof it. The result of this law was that no one with capital would join\na trade union, as their whole property became attached to the union;\nand poor persons were not desired on unions, as they could not take\nup a share of the proletariat service. This condition was met by the\nlaw forcibly enrolling capitalists in the unions, and demanding their\npersonal service as well as the use of their capital.\n\nBy 270 A.D. Aurelian had made unionism compulsory for life so as to\nprevent the able men from withdrawing, to better themselves by free\nwork individually. He also gave a wine dole, and gave bread in place\nof corn, to save the wastrel the trouble of baking. In the fourth\ncentury every member, and all his sons, and all his property, belonged\ninalienably to the trades union. By 369 A.D. all property however\nacquired belonged to the union.\n\nYet still men would leave all they had to get out of the hateful\nbondage, and so the unpopular trades\u2014such as the moneyers in 380\nA.D. and the bakers in 408\u2014were recruited by requiring that everyone\nwho married the daughter of a unionist must join his father-in-law's\nbusiness. And thus \"the Empire was an immense gaol where all worked not\naccording to taste but by force,\" as Waltzing remarks in his great work\n_Corporations Professionnelles_, where the foregoing facts are stated.\n\nThere was but one end possible to this accumulation of move upon move,\non the false basis of compulsory trade unionism, and work under cost\nfor the proletariat. The whole system was so destructive of character\nand of wealth that it ruined the empire. Slavery was by no means the\ndestruction of Rome, it flourished in the centuries when the Government\nwas strongest, and diminished in advance of the social decay. Vice\nwas by no means the destruction of Rome, it was worst when Rome was\nmost powerful and was lessened in the decline. The one movement which\ngrew steadily as Rome declined, and which was intimately connected\nwith every stage of that decline, was the compulsion of labour and\nthe maintenance of the wastrel as a burden on society. It was that\nwhich pulled down the greatest political organism, by the crushing of\ninitiative and character, and by the steady drain on all forms of\nwealth. The free Goth was the welcome deliverer from social bondage.\nThis growth of trade unionism has been followed here as a whole,\nwithout stopping to note other effects of the same type of mind, which\nare also very instructive to us. We now turn back to look at some\nearlier developments.\n\nThe Empire had a long age of internal peace, from the accession of\nVespasian to the rise of Severus, comprising four or five generations.\nMen had forgotten in Italy and the provinces what war meant, as the\nonly troubles had been frontier fighting. They ceased to value the\nstrength of unity, and the importance of keeping the empire bound\ntogether. The sayings attributed to Gallienus in the middle of the\nthird century cannot be looked on as merely wild vagaries, contrary\nto all the public opinion around him. Had no one else advocated the\nsubdivision of the empire, he would never have continued to jest about\nnot needing the produce of Gaul or of Syria. Such phrases must have\nbeen familiar among a little-Italy party, of whom Gallienus was the\nagent and mouthpiece. And such a situation will help to explain his\nconduct regarding the captivity of Valerian his father in Persia. A\nglance at old Valerian shows him to have been a rigid gentleman of\nthe old school, like Galba or Nerva. And, when he was captured, the\nlittle-Italy party who had hold of Gallienus were relieved rather than\notherwise. Had George III been captured by the French, probably George\nIV and Charles James Fox would not have been very anxious for his\nreturn.\n\nThe policy of the party seems to have been to encourage each province\nto start a separate government under its local ruler, in touch with\nthe Roman Government, but with recognised independence. Britain was\nseparated, and was only reunited to the empire at later times for\nshort periods; Postumus, Victorinus, Tetricus, Carausius, Allectus,\nConstantius, Magnentius, Magnus Maximus, Jovinus, all ruled without\nany check from Italy. Syria was separated with such good will that the\ncoinage for Zenobia was struck at the Imperial mint in Alexandria. In\nall, nineteen independent rulers are enumerated in this reign; and no\nattempt was made to reunite the provinces. There were gains in such a\ncourse; the heavy charge on Italy of keeping a great army was lessened;\nthe risks of civil war seemed to be reduced, when each province was\nnot tempted to set up its own ruler for the whole empire; and local\nfeelings and variations could have free scope. It might be thought that\nthree centuries of rule had fitted the provinces to hold their own in\nthe world, and to be ruled independently. The result of the experiment\nin devolution, or home rule all round, was a time of such anarchy,\nmisery and loss, as had not been known since a unified civilisation had\nexisted in those lands.\n\nAfter the immediate catastrophes had been somewhat rectified by\nsucceeding emperors, Aurelian took up the great task of reuniting the\nwhole empire. He carried this out victoriously; Tetricus from Gaul\nand Zenobia from Syria adorned his triumph. But Rome was bitter at\nsuch a policy. A furious rebellion broke out, nominally called the\nrevolt of the mint; that it was a great social movement was seen by\nGibbon, though he confesses that it is mysterious how three senators,\nmost of the senatorial families, and multitudes of minor people were\ninvolved in it. The fighting was so severe that five thousand of\nAurelian's trained army were killed. That the mint workmen took part\nin it is certain: but probably the mint was adopted as headquarters\nof the movement owing to its strength. All this shows that, so far\nfrom the great victories making Aurelian popular in Rome, they were\nmost bitterly opposed. The only ground for this must be that a very\nstrong party clung to the little-Italy policy, and hated Aurelian in\nconsequence. This movement gives good ground for interpreting the\npolicy of Gallienus in the way we have done above, as being a great\nparty policy and not merely an imperial freak.\n\nWithin less than a generation later came the vast socialist decree of\nDiocletian, regulating all prices and wages throughout the empire. A\nmaximum value was fixed for every kind of food\u2014grain, wine, oil, meat,\nfish, vegetables and fruit. Hence such food would never be produced\nwhere the natural conditions prevented a profit within this maximum\nprice; nor would it be transported beyond the distance within which the\nmaximum yielded a profit. Whole districts must have been cut off from\ndifferent kinds of supply by such legislation. Meanwhile the wages of\nlabourers, of artizans, and of professions were all equally regulated,\nso that the best men could never have their superior ability rewarded.\nThe prices of skins and leather, of all clothing, and of jewellery were\nlikewise defined.\n\nThe consequence must have been that the losses in bad years of supply,\nowing to weather and other circumstances, must have fallen wholly on\nthe producer, who might be ruined by the whole brunt of the loss,\ninstead of being partly compensated by a rise in prices which taxed the\nwhole body of users. No wonder that after such a law the whole empire\nplunged ever deeper into poverty and confusion. The coinage depreciated\neven more rapidly than before; and the economic distress of such a\nfixed system with a falling currency must have been overwhelming. Such\nwere the results of one of the great socialistic attempts to remedy the\ncourse of events by artificial legislation.\n\nWe thus see how by the establishment of unionism, the feeding of\npaupers, the devolution of the empire, and the legislation on prices\nand wages, the socialistic policy brought to naught the greatest social\norganism that had yet appeared in the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nREVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION?\n\n\nThose persons who are unaccustomed to consider the great effects\nwhich flow from a continuous action of small causes, are too liable\nto suppose that a large result can only be obtained by a violent and\nimmediate action. They suppose that only some mighty impulse can change\nthe face of affairs; they pray that the mountains be rent, and look to\nthe earthquake and the tempest, not thinking that it is the still small\nvoice that really directs. They forget that it is the humble earthworms\nthat plough the land, and the invisible bacteria that destroy nations\nand alter the face of politics.\n\nIgnoring the far-reaching after-effects of action, men are led to\nover-do all the changes which they attempt to carry out by direct and\nimmediate means. This is like a child who asks to have its hand cut off\nbecause its finger aches.\n\nThe bad effect of sudden and violent changes may best be observed\nin our own history. The great changes of the Civil War left England\nwithout any checks on the violence of parties. The King and Lords had\nbeen abolished, and the Commons ruled alone. The fierce factions of the\nPresbyterians and Independents would have wrecked the country, had not\na ruler come forward far more arbitrary than the one already rejected.\nCharles had looked over the wall when he tried to arrest five members,\nbut Cromwell stole the horse outright when he dismissed the parliament\nby armed force. Pride's Purge was a greater violation of popular\nliberties than anything done by Tudor or Stuart; and the effect of half\na generation of such violence was that the nation was heartily glad to\nget back a worse king than the one they had beheaded. Cromwell's great\nservice was, that he saved England from a fanatical and factious House\nof Commons, by exercising monarchical prerogatives which Charles never\ndared to assert. The needs of the time drove him, as a capable man,\nto act for the highest good outside the law. When we hear a faction\nlauding Cromwell now, it may be overlooked that he made short work of\nFifth Monarchy men and other extremists; and that the great struggle\nof mind to him was the dire necessity of crushing the factions, and of\nusing that compulsion which he clearly saw was the only alternative to\nanarchy. The bitter persecuting spirit of the factions was far more\nviolent than any course of action which preceded or followed their\nrule. Neither Charles I nor Charles II touched the private religious\nactions of the people; but the factions proscribed even the private use\nof the Book of Common Prayer. The subsequent Five-mile Act regulating\npublic meetings for worship was mild compared with the domiciliary\nvisitations in search of the Prayer Book in 1645. But for the visits\nof the parliamentary soldiery, breaking into chapels and putting their\nswords to the breasts of the kneeling communicants, there would never\nhave been the milder dispersions of the Restoration. But for the\nbitter persecution of the so-called Malignants, and the deprivation of\nthe clergy throughout the country by the parliament, there would never\nhave been the milder reversion of Bartholomew's Day, 1662. In every\npoint the violent changes of constitution wrought more tyranny and more\npersonal hardship than was even caused by the revulsion which followed.\n\nIn France the same effect was seen. The Revolution probably caused more\nbloodshed and more personal misery in ten years, than the old _r\u00e9gime_\nhad done in a century. England has paid twenty-five millions a year for\na century past as interest on the debt incurred for crushing Napoleon.\n\nAnother result should be noted with care. A great popular ferment with\na diminution of constitutional control, must result in establishing\na military despotism as the lesser evil for the country. Caesar,\nAurelian, Cromwell, Napoleon, all arose from the popular party, as the\nnecessary substitutes, by arbitrary action, for the constitutionalism\nwhich had been abolished. In the place of the legally regulated\ncourses, more or less unsuitable and corrupted, it proved absolutely\nnecessary when they were abolished to have some other supreme authority\nwith power to enforce obedience.\n\nWe are not concerned at this point to consider the relative right or\nwrong of the various parties just mentioned; that has nothing to do\nwith the matter. The lesson is that a violent and rapid change of\nconstitution leads to worse evils than those which it is sought to\nremedy. Every existing order of things, however imperfect or bad, must\nhave a certain balance of parts or it could not continue. And when\nthat balance is destroyed the results can seldom be foreseen. It is\nexactly the same in nature; when any species of animal is exterminated\nsuddenly\u2014as by firearms\u2014the far-reaching consequences of its\ndisappearance cannot be anticipated; other species will increase or\ndisappear, and even vegetable life will be modified.\n\nThe phrase therefore of a \"radical reform,\" or briefly \"radicalism,\" is\nin defiance of natural science and of historical experience; it denies\nthe principle of gradual evolution in the development of institutions\nand of character. A small amount of experience of different types is\nenough to show its fallacy, for radicals say that \"travelling abroad\nalways spoils a good radical.\"\n\nIn order to avoid violent change it is needful to allow free scope\nfor gradual change. The greatest catastrophes may be caused by the\naccumulation of small forces; when a tiny stream becomes dammed by a\nlandslip it may form a lake, which in bursting will devastate a whole\nvalley. So when the gradual movement of a people is checked, and an\nartificial condition is enforced by laws, the breaking down of such\nrestrictions will cause wholesale disaster. Had the Romans allowed\nfree immigration of Gothic settlers there would never have been the\nGothic conquest of Italy. Were the Californians and Australians to\nallow a free immigration of Japanese, under fair and equal laws, they\nwould not have to fear a squadron demanding justice in their ports.\nThe necessity of violent changes is therefore always the fault of\nthose who prevent gradual changes to fit new conditions. If the House\nof Commons tries again the experiment of the Long Parliament, and by\nforce or subterfuge abrogates the second chamber, it will be largely\ndue to the House of Lords refusing changes in its mode of action. An\nUpper House which elected a legislative committee, like the election of\nScotch and Irish Peers, would be in a far stronger position. The House\nof Commons at present is too much like an elephant picking up pins; and\nif the public become so much disgusted with its incapacity for business\nthat at some crisis they throw the reins of power to an able man like\nKitchener, it will be largely due to the fossilisation of the Rules of\nProcedure. A Lower House which allotted its time strictly according to\nthe value of its votes of supply, or of the interests involved\u2014which\nregistered its decisions instantly, as by the electric signals which\nare now found in every hotel, and which employed diagrams in debate\nby means of the lantern and screen which are now found in every\nschool\u2014would stand a better chance of coping with its business in a\ncreditable manner. The fault of violent change, and all its damaging\nconsequences, rests in the first place on those who resist gradual\nchange.\n\nIt is therefore needful to leave the way open for gradual changes. In\nevery new law, the changes of circumstance which are likely to arise\nshould be anticipated, by leaving the way open for them to begin to\nact gently and gradually. The principle of fixed fines (based on\nincome tax), regardless of any reflection on character, for various\ninfractions of a civil law (or even of some criminal laws) should be\nalways open, so that, as necessities arise, the prevalence of such\nfines would call attention to the need of some change. An excellent\nsystem has been found in allowing a department a large latitude in\ninterpreting a law, or a dispensing power in administering it; and this\nsystem might well be extended so far as it was not seriously abused by\nfavouritism. Another mode of change is to permit a variety of types in\ndifferent places, as in local administration, and then allow a large\nlatitude for the adoption of any type found to work well in another\nplace. This is partly reached by varying bye-laws; but this might well\nbe extended higher in the scale, and with local liberty to adopt any\nbye-law already sanctioned elsewhere. The ways would thus be open for\ngradual movements, which could extend until they produced such pressure\non the larger and more organic laws as to cause a serious legislative\nstep.\n\nWe will now turn to observe the far-reaching actual and probable\neffects of various laws, which at first might seem quite inadequate\nto cause such changes. Some years have passed since the graduation of\ndeath-duties, and we can begin to see the effects. The simple action\nof a tax, without any compulsion, has produced a profound change in a\nfamily system which centuries or thousands of years had left unaltered.\nThe notorious clinging to power and money among the aged, has given\nway before the screw of the State. The custom which left the control\nof large estates to men generally between fifty and eighty years of\nage, and hampered their development by the dying hand, has largely\nyielded to the Indian custom, of the division of property among sons\non their marriage or entry on public life. It is becoming habitual for\na father to establish his sons with the family property, and only\nto retain such a portion of the estate as he may wish to fill his\ndeclining activities. This is a very beneficial change, though by no\nmeans a grateful one to the Exchequer which has brought it about. In\nlesser properties the same action occurs; a father will buy an annuity\nfor himself, and distribute the remaining capital, each son being at\nliberty either to place his portion at compound interest, so as to\nreplace at the probable date of his father's death the full amount\nwhich he would have received otherwise, or else to trust to replacing\nthe amount when he may be at his most remunerative age.\n\nNot only is this a great social change, with far-reaching consequences\nin the management of property, but it will also act in other lines.\nWhen a man deals with his property in the unchecked privacy of a will,\nhe can neglect the pressure of personality of his children in favour\nof the sentiment of leaving a powerful family name in perpetuity. But\nprimogeniture must more or less succumb before the obvious personal\nclaims of those who are joining in the daily life. It requires not only\na flinty heart but also a brazen face, to leave younger sons penniless\nwhen personally distributing the means of ensuring the happiness and\nthe amenities of life. Hence it is probable that estates will be much\nmore sub-divided, and sons encouraged to continue to live on corners\nof the paternal acres. In short it will be a step toward the French\ninfinitesimal splitting of property.\n\nThis again will act in a fundamental manner on our colonising ability.\nPrimogeniture has made us a colonising race; no system is so perfect\nfor ensuring a supply of fit colonists. When each wealthy house in\nthe land educated two or three sturdy sons, with every benefit of\nhealth and knowledge, and then sent them out to form new centres,\nwith a small capital to start with, and a reserve of help at home for\nany dire emergencies, the most perfect colonising machine had been\nevolved. Without these conditions England could never have filled\nother continents as she has. When sons stay at home on portions of the\nold estate, and have not enough wealth for the high training of their\nfamilies, all this colonising power will be at an end. France cannot\ncolonise because her domestic system does not produce this type of man,\nfitted in person and in condition to take up such a life. Our high\ndeath-duties are a certain way to stop educated colonisation.\n\nAnother change is also seen resulting from these duties. England, more\nthan other lands, was rich in private treasure houses of precious\nthings\u2014pictures, statuary, libraries, and other collections. These\nrepresented a large amount of capital locked up, but it yielded a rich\ninterest in the home education of the upper classes, in redeeming\nthem from the dull, unimaginative, coarse, or sordid lives of wealthy\nclasses in some other lands. So long as a duty only equal to a few\nmonths' or a year's interest was levied, the succession was not too\nburdensome, and the state reaped a steady small return. But when\nthe possession of such means of amenity involves at each generation\na crushing tax on the productive part of an estate, they must be\nsacrificed. The collections are vanishing to other lands, where such\nshort-sighted policy is unknown, and England will be left bare. A\nfar more profitable policy would have been to exempt all artistic or\nhistorical collections from death-duties, if they were thrown open to\nthe public for a certain number of days in each year. They would thus\nhave become partly public museums, provided free of all cost to the\nsurrounding districts.\n\nAnother serious consideration is that 10 or 15 per cent., or even\n20 per cent. in case of bequests for public purposes, is taken off\naccumulated national capital and thrown into yearly income. The estate\nduty is incessantly eating up the national reserves, and using them for\ncurrent expenses. We should call any family which did this shameless\nspendthrifts, yet this is the immoral fashion of our taxation.\n\nThe effect of income tax is one of the most serious economic subjects,\nbecause it directly touches the production of wealth. There is little\nobjection to income tax for emergencies of war, because if merely\nnominal (1_d._ in the pound) during peace, the true amount taxable\nwill be well known, and a sudden increase will be truly collected and\nwill not have distinct economic effects if only used for a year or\ntwo. But treating direct tax on incomes as a large source of revenue\nhas very important effects on a commercial nation. A tax as high as\n1_s._ in the pound is practically a tax on all English enterprise\nas compared with foreign. If a mill can be run at Calais to produce\nnon-dutiable articles, free of income tax on its dividends, while a\nmill at Dover pays 5 per cent. tax on its dividends, that constitutes\na discrimination of 5 per cent. against the English manufacturer's\ncapital. The outcome of the whole is that all shares of English\ncompanies will stand permanently at 5 per cent. lower value than the\nshares of foreign companies. Or in other words \u00a34 interest will have to\nbe paid by an English company for \u00a395 raised by debenture, while the\nforeign company will raise \u00a3100 for the same interest. The immediate\nresult is that investments will increasingly be made in foreign\ngovernments and companies, whose dividends are payable _abroad_,\ninstead of in London. This is not merely an evasion of tax, but it is\nperfectly legal if the dividends are spent abroad. No one need pay\ntax on any cost of foreign travel or residence if they draw the money\nfrom foreign sources, and do not let it be trapped in London. Thus\nthere will be an ever increasing demand for purely foreign investment,\naccording to the amount of tax on the investments in England. If\nthe proposal was carried out to tax all investments much higher as\n\"unearned income,\" it would cripple all English manufacture for lack of\nthe capital, which would be driven abroad to escape the tax. It might\nbe thought that other governments will come into line, and tax equally\nwith ours; but if they see their own commercial advantage they will be\nvery loth to put this bar on English capital flowing into their land\nto gain freedom. Even if France and Germany did as we do, it might be\nwell worth while for Monaco to become the financial centre of Europe by\nhaving no income tax on companies centred there. The recent De Beers\ndecision illustrates this very clearly. A company with its work abroad,\nand its investors largely abroad, is taxed on all its income because\nit uses a few square yards of space in London as an office. Obviously\nit will not remain. London will no longer be the centre of commercial\nwork of the world if 5 per cent. or perhaps 10 per cent. is the price\nto be paid by all who use it. No company will remain in England that\nis not fixed by its works being here, and all those who are fixed here\nwill work at a permanent disadvantage compared to the foreigner. It\nis doubtless thought that the large income yielded by the interest on\nthe national debt is a safe and easy subject of taxation; Italy indeed\nraises 20 per cent. income tax on its debt interest. But this tax is\npurely nominal, as it is discounted in the price of stock, and such a\ngovernment is merely paying with the left hand what it takes with the\nright. The case is seen clearly in Italian stock which stands at 20\nper cent. lower value than it otherwise would; that is to say, that\nItaly pays say \u00a34 for the loan of \u00a380 now, instead of for the loan of\n\u00a3100 which it would receive if this tax was not imposed. The same is\nequally true of the tax as applied to government salaries; it cannot\nbe evaded, and therefore it is merely a diminution of the salary, or a\ndepreciation of the quality of men obtained for the nominal salary. A\ngovernment cannot tax its own payments by any financial jugglery. Of\ncourse a government can cheat like a private person; promise a certain\npayment, and then break its word, and pay less by a tax. But that is\nonly a transient profit raised by the sale of its character, and is not\na permanent bargain.\n\nAnother effect of income tax will be seen if the proposed higher\ngrading of incomes is carried out. The same changes that we have traced\nowing to the death duties will be produced by the life duties. Property\nwill be sub-divided wherever possible. Every child will have a trust\ncreated for its benefit, every member of a family will have a separate\nincome, every large estate will be nominally the property of a group\nof independent persons\u2014a family club. This will tend, like the death\nduties, toward equal shares, instead of the parent hive system of\nprimogeniture; and it likewise marks the end of educated colonising.\nThe effect of this may be good for family life, but it will be\ndisastrous commercially. There will no longer be the large capitalists\nwho can take the risks of great enterprises. To raise a large floating\ncapital for great undertakings will require the co-operation of so many\nsmall capitalists, that it will not be worth while for any one investor\nto give time to the affair. The lack of personal concern and interest,\nand the cost of dealing with widely collected capital, will all be a\ndetriment to enterprises of large extent.\n\nBut the most disastrous as well as immoral kind of taxation will be\nthat proposed as additional upon all permanent investments, under\nthe guise of \"unearned income.\" It is a fatally easy screw for a\ngovernment to put on; but the effect of it will be to penalise all\nBritish manufacture in competition with foreign productions. All that\nwe have noticed about the effect of a 5 per cent. tax will apply far\nmore rapidly and decisively if a 10 per cent. tax should be put on.\nShippers would sail under another flag and transfer their offices of\nregistration; manufacturers would pass to a tax-free country; and a\nlarger proportion of persons living on fixed income would spend it\nabroad. Beside the material disadvantages of such high taxation on\nenterprise, it would be a grave moral detriment.\n\nIt is too often forgotten that in taxation the government wields one\nof the greatest means of moral education. What does it say now by its\ntaxation? Suppose a man to have saved \u00a3100, and to consider whether\nhe will spend it on unremunerative pleasures, or on useful public\nworks. The government says, \"If you will spend your money on waste\nand luxury, paying for useless and monstrous rooms, making men stand\nidle in your hall, or decorate your extravagant food; if you will make\nwomen waste their eyes and lives on a fresh absurdity of fashion, or\nsell their souls; or if you will pay boys to become ne'er-do-weels on\ngolf-links\u2014in short if you will do as much mischief as possible, we\nwill take 5 per cent. of your money. But if you spend it on benefiting\nthe world, improving cultivation, building railways, opening the waste\nplaces and making them blossom, we will take 18 per cent., and leave\nyou only \u00a382 out of your \u00a3100.\" That is to say 5 per cent. on the\noriginal earning of the capital, 5 per cent. tax on investment income,\nand 10 per cent. on death duties, as estimated on large capital by\nthe Income Tax Commission, 1906. And if the proposed higher taxing\nof so-called \"unearned income\" were carried out, this government\nclaim would rise to 23 per cent. or even higher. In all reason, after\nmoney when earned has paid its tax of 5 per cent. it should be free\nof all further claims, at least if employed for public utility, and\nthere should be no tax on dividends whatever, nor any death duties\non savings; all such taxation falls eventually on the capital of the\nuseful undertakings, and directly cripples the industry of the country.\n\nThe only way to escape the deadly effects of income tax upon home\nmanufactures and produce would be to lay a countervailing duty on all\nimports, and a bounty on all exports. Then, and only then, would the\nmanufacturer or farmer here be on exactly the same footing as one\nabroad. Then, and only then, would free trade be really carried out.\nSo long as taxes fall on home production or home capital, which do not\nfall similarly abroad, so long free trade cannot exist.\n\nAnother highly immoral view of taxation is that of \"plucking the\ngoose so that it feels it least.\" Such a maxim was appropriate and\nexcellent for an opportunist minister of an autocratic sovereign. But\nthe first necessity for the political health of a democracy is that\nthe individual shall feel every tax; such is the only way to prevent\nthe squandering of public money by the votes of ignorant taxpayers. It\nwould be very wholesome if the national expenditure was presented as a\nseries of personal bills, showing how much was spent on each department\nby an average \u00a350, or \u00a3100, or \u00a3200 householder. He would then be as\nmuch ashamed of the smallness of some items as of the largeness of\nothers.\n\nWhat is needed in place of the tax upon industry is a tax upon\nextravagance. We are accustomed to taxes which far exceed the prime\ncost upon tobacco and alcohol; and other luxuries should also be\nsimilarly taxed. If instead of taxing income (which is often requisite\nfor reasonable living, or else usefully spent on improvements of the\nworld), we had the luxuries taxed, the only people to complain (if the\nchange were gradual) would be those who wasted instead of using their\nincome. Let all ostentation be taxed very heavily, spacious rooms,\nlarge numbers of servants, costly food, motor cars (not professionally\nneeded), entrance money for amusements, and tailors' and milliners'\nbills; and then a much smaller amount of such extravagance will equally\nbespeak wealth, and gain as much social consideration as at present.\nSuch would be a moral taxation in place of the present wholly immoral\nand indefensible system of taxing industry and leaving waste unchecked.\n\nWe will now look to other eventual results of small continual action.\nThe effect of transferring little by little the property in Irish\nland to the present occupiers has not been sufficiently noticed. For\nthe present generation such a transference was merry enough to the\ntenant. But when he sells to another tenant what is to happen? Will a\nfuture tenant enter and gradually expropriate the present tenant, by\ntreating him as a landlord? Certainly the present tenant will not be\nso foolish as to be thus trapped, he will demand money on the nail.\nHow then is the future tenant to get his capital to buy the land? In\nmost cases he will have to get it by borrowing on mortgage. And if\nthe government is not prepared to always keep open a loan office for\nevery incoming tenant to the end of time, a loan society or company\nmust be his resort. Then if he should not pay this rent to the distant\nintangible society, his mortgage will be foreclosed. In place of a body\nof landlords, and landlords' agents who could always be personally\napproached, Ireland will fall into the hands of a landlordism of\ndistant money-lenders without souls or feelings, and whom neither\nblandishments nor bullets can affect.\n\nThe remedy for land difficulties and various ills, that has been so\noften proposed, namely the State ownership of the land, is by no means\npromising. The greatest objection that can be flung at a landlord is\nthat he is an absentee. No amount of agency, no excellence in the\nsubordinate, is thought to compensate for the personal interest, the\npersonal influence and care, of a good conscientious landlord spending\nhis life among his tenants. Yet the State ownership would be worse\nthan any absentee landlord. The agent would be that of an impersonal\ngovernment, and responsible to nobody so long as he fulfilled a certain\nset of hard rules. He would have no personality more or less pliable\nbehind him, but would blindly carry out the general dictates of a\nParliament or a Revenue office, which neither knew nor cared about\nany personal exceptions or local details. We all know the ways of the\nInland Revenue already; the extortions which have to be tediously\nreclaimed at a greater cost of time than the refunded money is worth;\nthe starving of the Post Office in order to wring a profit of 50 per\ncent. on the whole correspondence of the country; the various illegal\ndemands which have had to be resisted by legal trial, and appeal over\nappeal, at a ruinous cost to those who will not be cheated; we see in\nFrance and Italy the atrophy of a railway system which is ruled by\ngovernment officials. And yet unobservant enthusiasts wish that every\nfield should be under some petty official tied by red tape, and every\nfarmer bound by laws and regulations which could never be applied to\neven a small district without individual hardship. The townsman cannot\nbe allowed to play political experiments with the largest industry of\nEngland, of which he is profoundly ignorant: it must rest with the\nfarmer only, to decide if he prefer to be under the Inland Revenue\nor under his landlord. It is notorious that government lands are\nadministered more wastefully and less remuneratively than any private\nproperty; and it would be ruinous to tie up the whole country to such\nadministration. It is useless to say that these are mere abuses which\nmust be rectified. Let them be rectified in the minor scale first,\nbefore the system can be applied in the major scale. There is no kind\nof government in the world that would not ruin this country if it\nintroduced State ownership. Human nature does not allow of it, and only\nignorance of human nature could propose it.\n\nAnother large effect of trifles is seen in the cumulative character\nof borrowers. Mr. Harold Cox, M.P., has reminded those who are in\nfavour of rather confiscatory proposals, that a loss of character of\na public body, so that their good faith is not certain, may easily\nmean that they have to pay 4 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. for\nloans: and hence that all rents of public works paid for by loans will\nhave to be 33 per cent. higher. This loss is far more than could be\ngained by entire confiscation of ground values, and entire ruin of all\nlandlords. That this is by no means only a future risk may be seen in\nthe stock list any day. India is not entirely safe; there are risks\nof financial ruin\u2014by conquest, by ruinous wars against invasion, by\nruin in insurrection, by ejectment, or by having to drop India owing\nto a collapse of the navy. Yet all these risks together are thought\nto be less than the risk of bad faith on the London County Council.\nTheir stock stands at a lower price than India stock. Such is the large\nresult of the many little touches of folly and extravagance which have\nlowered the financial barometer.\n\nAnother instance of remote changes is in the effects of the steam\nengine and other cheap and rapid communication. The full extent of the\nchanges caused are yet far from being completed. Externally the great\nchange is that of the equalisation of land values for agriculture all\nover the world, as the produce can be carried from land to land for a\nsmall part of its value. Hence tropical lands with rapid growth and\nhigh fertility will compete with others; and the cheapness of labour\nthere, owing to the smaller requirements in a warmer climate, will\nreact on all agricultural wages. There will also be a demand for cheap\nlabour to work tropical lands to their full extent; and the facility\nfor transportation of labourers will result in constantly shifting\nenergetic people from rather cooler climates into the hotter land for\na time, and withdrawing them again. The same system we already carry\nout for governing classes in India; and cheap transport will make it\npossible for an energetic race to hold hot countries continuously,\nwithout decay due to enervation by climate, as was the case in all\nearlier northern invaders.\n\nInternally the changes owing to cheap communication are that land of\nsimilar quality equalises in value; and hence the worst land will\nfall to bottom price all over the country, and cannot be locally of\nany higher value. Also it will be difficult to get people to live in\nunpleasant districts, as they can easily shift about; hence wages will\nneed to be higher in such districts, and therefore the land will be\nstill lower. Thus the mobility of the inhabitants exaggerates the\nvariation of land values already due to differing quality. The more\nbulky industries that need cheap land, and not much labour, will be\nfixed in the unpleasant districts; and peasant proprietors will tend to\nthe worse land, as being abnormally low in value. Regarding movement of\npopulation only, as capable men can move about freely to get work that\ngives them full scope, the less capable will supplant the capable in\nall work that they are able to do. Hence we shall no longer find men\nof high quality leading simple lives in remote districts. The gain to\nthe whole community is clear, but we lose one of the most interesting\ntypes of national character. The free and rapid transit in cities will\ncause them to be much less crowded in one mass. At Chicago men go to\nbusiness from five miles out in five minutes. Our cumbrous stoppages\nalong the whole route must be entirely given up for the outer districts\nof London. What is needed is a series of new centres twenty to thirty\nmiles out of London; joined, some to the City, some to the West End,\nby non-stop trains, at sixty miles an hour. Such is certainly the\ntype of great city which will finally be reached\u2014a county covered\nwith separate centres linked by trains at the highest speed. As we\nshall note further on, the development of great equatorial estates of\nEuropean powers, and the growth of immense permanent armaments are both\nthe inevitable result of rapid communication. We see thus how the whole\ntype of human life and conditions has been altered, and the whole balance\nof circumstances readjusted, by the evolution of cheap motor power.\n\nWe have already noticed another effect of this change, in the increase\nof emigration draining the more capable persons from England, and so\nleaving a residue inferior in energy, initiative and self-reliance.\nThis deterioration of the occupants of England and Ireland is thus due\nto the purely mechanical contrivance of a steam engine.\n\nWe have now traced the large effects of small economic causes, and\nwe see how such apparently insignificant alterations may be far more\neffective and act far more beneficially than smashing the social\nmachine with a sledge hammer because it does not run smoothly. We will\nnow turn to look at some of the effects of favourite ideas of the\npresent time.\n\nThe compensation to workmen for accident seems at first sight a\nrighteous charge upon capital for the benefit of those who are injured\nin their business. The immediate effect upon character is to save\nthe careless, thoughtless, and incompetent from the results of their\nfaults; this at once reduces largely the weeding and educational\neffects of the bad qualities. No man would ever have become careful\nif he did not find the necessity of being so. Even if a tendency to\nmalingering can be avoided, yet the teaching effect is done away.\nIt may be thought that it is better to save the individual from his\nindiscretions rather than cure the race. Like most sentimentalism it\ncauses more misery in the long run. Another, and entirely separate,\neffect is to prevent the employment of those who by age or bodily\ndefect are the more liable to accident; the immediate hardship of loss\nof employment to these classes is, in the total, probably greater than\nthe hardship of loss of employment by accidents which it is sought\nto compensate. We injure the individual as well as the race by such\ngrandmothering. A severe law demanding full and adequate protection of\nworkers, where they can be mechanically protected, is the utmost that\ncould be beneficially enforced.\n\nThe provision of old age pensions is another pleasing scheme. In\nthe first place it will diminish the need of foresight and of\nself-restraint; it will thus weaken character by removing the great\ndriving force of self-interest. The burden will have to be borne by\nall, including those who are already at the last gasp, and will tend\nto push such over the border line. It will not discriminate between\nthose who have borne a large share in the cost of national renewal\nby bringing up a family, and those who have selfishly squandered all\nthey received. And like outdoor poor relief, it will be discounted\nin wages, and tend to lower the wage rate if no savings are to be\nexpected. A sounder plan would be to revert to the kind of communal\nsystem of our forefathers, and make a legal demand for a pension of,\nsay, \u00a32 a year from every child, and 10_s._ a year from every grown\nup nephew or grandchild. Thus those who have done most for the State\nby renewal would receive most in return, and the greatest inducement\nwould be given to bring up children to active and capable lives. The\nidea of a right to maintenance would be the knell of any State which\nundertook it. The endowment of wastrels, the taxing of all the capable\nfor the propagation of the incapable, and the wholesale deterioration\nof character, would be utter ruin to a nation. Nature knows of no right\nto maintenance, but only the necessity of getting rid of those who need\nit by mending or ending them.\n\nThere is another movement which seems most desirable and humane at\nfirst sight, and irreproachable in its economic aspect: the saving of\ninfant life by greater care. A huge waste of life is going on, and\nit has been proved that it is preventable. But however much we must\nsympathise with it, we cannot shut our eyes to its meaning. England\nproduces over 300,000 excess of births over deaths yearly, and perhaps\na tenth more might be added to that by care of infant life. But would\nthat tenth be of the best stock or the worst? We must agree that it\nwould be of the lower, or lowest type of careless, thriftless, dirty,\nand incapable families that the increase would be obtained. Is it worth\nwhile to dilute our increase of population by 10 per cent. more of the\nmost inferior kind? Will England be stronger for having one thirtieth\nmore, and that of the worst stock, added to the population every year?\nThis movement is doing away with one of the few remains of natural\nweeding out of the unfit that our civilisation has left to us. And it\nwill certainly cause more misery than happiness in the course of a\ncentury.\n\nLastly, let us look to the general question of the results of the\naccumulation of wealth in the hands of different classes. Roughly we\nmay divide three classes of money-earners: the lower, who receive\nweekly pay, and are tempted to spend it all by the certainty of poor\nrelief when needed; the middle, who receive yearly pay, and must\nsave if they are to avoid losing caste in late life; the upper, who\nmake large but uncertain profits by organising work, or by financial\nmanipulation, regular or irregular. During the last century we have\nseen a great growth of wealth in England. At first it spread to\nworkmen and manufacturers, then to the middle classes generally, and\nlatterly much has accumulated in the hands of large operators with\ntrusts and financial dealings. What has been the result of the wealth\nin the hands of each class, to that class, and to the whole community?\nThe rise of workmen's pay has mainly been used up; there has been a\ngreat benefit by improving the conditions of life, but perhaps half of\nthe increase has been lost in mere waste; very little has gone toward\nlifting families to a higher class, and but a very small proportion\nhas been saved. The whole property of the poor is estimated now at\nnearly a year's income, the result of savings in a century, or less\nthan 1 per cent. saved. When we turn to the middle classes there is\na worse spectacle. There was, broadly speaking, but little need to\nraise the standard of expenditure among the middle classes. They\nwere fairly comfortable, and need not have spent more on themselves;\ntheir gains might have been spent on profitable enterprises, or given\nfor endowments to public purposes. On the contrary, but a small part\nof their gains have been saved or remuneratively spent, and far the\ngreater part has disappeared in ever-increasing ostentation. It has\nbeen turned into a curse by creating an absurdly artificial standard of\nliving and of sociality, so burdensome that every man is ashamed to ask\na friend to the leg of mutton dinners of his grandfather's standard.\nIt is thought mean to spend less per head on a single dinner than the\namount which ought to keep a man in comfort for a couple of weeks.\nReal, genial sociality has been uprooted and killed in the senseless\nrace of ostentation. And practically nothing has been done for public\nbenefits by endowments. As a manufacturer in a park, with a motor,\nremarked, \"you cannot expect anyone not to spend up to his income.\" The\nidea of using what is really requisite for successful living, and not\nsquandering money beyond that, is entirely forgotten. The simplicity\nof having nothing that is unnecessary, the pleasure of having a large\nbalance to use beyond the needs of life, and the comfort of never\nneeding to worry about money, are all unknown to those who spend up to\nthe hilt, and who turn their money into a grinding curse of life. The\ndistribution of surplus wealth among the middle classes has proved an\nentire failure in national economics.\n\nNow, lastly, the surplus is passing into a new class, the large\nbusiness speculator, the financier, and trust-man. So far as we can\nyet see, this class is justifying itself far more than the middle\nclass. In fifty years the middle classes have not given as much to\nendow education as the millionaires have given in five years. A man\nwith a gigantic income cannot spend more than a few per cent. of\nit on himself. He must use it for large public enterprises which\nbenefit mankind. To put it in another form, a great dealer has\norganised a method for taxing the community in such a way that they\ndo not notice it. And if he spends the tax on public improvements or\nendowments\u2014railways, new inventions, or universities\u2014he is an active\nbenefactor to the whole community. He sponges up the surplus which\nwould otherwise be frittered away in ostentation or luxury, and drops\nit out where it is a permanent benefit. As a principle we may hate the\ntrust-man and multi-millionaire, but he may be a lesser curse than the\nextravagant middle or lower-class man. War is hateful, but it may be a\nlesser curse than rotting in peace. So long as the average man shows\nby his selfish luxury that he is incapable of managing wealth, so long\nthe private taxer\u2014who prevents some of the waste\u2014will be a positive\nblessing to the community. The evolution of the great money-manager\ntype now going on is a distinct step forward in the prevention of\nwaste, and the growth of a better system of expenditure. A million\npounds a year scattered over a hundred thousand men will be all eaten\nup in luxuries or lost in folly; spread among a thousand men it will\nonly swell their wasteful pride of life; but put it in the hands of ten\nmen who have worked for it, and they will spend most of it in useful\nwork that will bear fruit. Until the education, moral and intellectual,\nof the average man is on a higher plane, it will be well for the\nsurplus wealth to be in the safer hands of those who have proved their\ncapacity for avoiding waste. The evolution of society is not fitted at\npresent for a wealthy middle-class, or a proletariat domination.\n\nWe have now seen in many directions how great are the changes in the\nconstitution of society, which are brought about by a succession of\nsmall movements, each of which imperceptibly bears its share in the\nchange. We see thus how carefully small tendencies should be watched;\nand we learn how needless and often how futile is a violent uprooting\nof institutions instead of a gradual growth.\n\nAnother lesson to note is that every attempt to interfere by\nlegislation in the natural working of causes is more likely to do\nharm than good. The long lesson, which it took all the middle ages to\nteach, was that legislative interference with trade always did harm;\nwe have come to believe that in a half-hearted way, but we are still\nperpetually longing to tinker society by interfering with natural cause\nand effect.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE NEED OF DIVERSITY.\n\n\nA large part of the aims of government in all ages has been the\nsecuring of uniformity, and much of the misery of mankind has been\ncaused by the enforcing of it. But when we look at nature we see that a\nhighly uniform species is the least likely to advance; and a seedsman\nor a breeder will try to break up too uniform a strain by exciting\nconditions which may lead to beneficial new varieties. It is only in a\nfluctuating species in which new \"sports\" easily arise, or are quickly\ndeveloped by conditions, that we can expect to acquire new qualities or\nbeneficial advance.\n\nIt is therefore one of the essentials for an advancing species that it\nshould have full scope for diversity, so that any new varieties may not\nbe crushed out by a uniformity of conditions. Too uniform a type of\ngovernment is a deadly thing. Compulsory orthodoxy killed the vitality\nof Spain, and\u2014so far as it succeeded\u2014that of France also. No state\nwas more brilliant or vigorous than the Norman rule in Sicily, which\nequally patronised Muhammedan and Christian.\n\nDiversity may be secured in two ways, either by large varieties within\na single great state, or by differences between homogeneous small\nstates. The diversity within a large state may be seen in England or\nAmerica; diversity between small states was attained between the cities\nof ancient Greece or mediaeval Italy.\n\nBut we meet with limiting conditions in the necessity of combination\nfor mutual support; and in small states that can be carried out by a\nvigorous intolerance which weeds out those who are not conformable, and\ndrives them into more congenial communities. Intolerance, therefore, is\na gain to a small community, though detrimental to a large state where\nit excludes the neighbourhood of variety.\n\nIn modern times it is with large states that we have mainly to deal.\nThey are a necessary development where communication is sufficiently\neasy for the concentrated military pressure of the whole to be brought\nto bear on a single point. If states are so small that concentration\non the border is too easy, the state will expand; if concentration is\ndifficult owing to size, the state will tend to fall apart again. The\nsize for states which is most successful is a function of the facility\nof internal communication. Let those who deplore the absorption of\nsmall states, and the growth of Imperialism in all countries, ponder\nthe tale of the North American Indians, who resented the power of the\nwhite man, and considered how to rid themselves of him. Their great\ncouncil was rejoiced, when one sage said that if they would do as he\nsaid, he would promise that no white man should remain. \"If the white\nman is to go you must give up all that he brought, the horse, the gun,\nthe blanket, the firewater; if you will do this you may be free.\" They\nthought\u2014and then said, \"No, he must stay.\" So, if we are willing to\nrevert to nothing quicker than a cob, we might get back to a Heptarchy.\n\nThe modern condition of great states being therefore forced upon us by\nthe railway and telegraph, the only practical question is the form of\nlife in such communities. Uniformity that is enforced, either by law,\nor by custom or fashion, is certainly a detriment, as it will suppress\nthe useful variations when they arise. And the objection to it bursts\nout in the form of anarchism, which is specially a disease of great\nstates. The amount of anarchism is very closely related to the size of\nthe state; and it is probably an exact measure of the internal strain\nproduced by repulsion of diverse types and the pressure needed to keep\nthem together.\n\nIt is only a very crude form of intolerance to expect many tens of\nmillions of people to agree in religion, morals, and government. A\ndegree of intolerance that may succeed, and even be useful, for some\nthousands, will be disastrous if applied to as many millions of men.\n\nBut here we run against another guiding principle of many people. It\nis often assumed that possibly in government, probably in religion,\nand certainly in morals, there is an absolute standard of right and\nwrong, immutable and irremovable. To take the last subject\u2014that of\nmorals\u2014to the utilitarian they are the conditions for the well-being\nof society, and may vary indefinitely with the variations of society,\nand he recognises that there is perhaps no action which may not belong\nto the best code of morality for certain possible conditions. To the\ntheologian morals are the Divine dictates, which have varied immensely\nunder different dispensations; and the Patriarchal, early Jewish,\nProphetic, or Christian codes are represented as quite incompatible one\nwith another. The subjects of sister-marriage, concubinage of captives,\nlapidation, private revenge, communal or individual responsibility,\nand others, all show how entirely variable the presentation of the\nmoral standard is for different states of society. Hence we must always\nregard any given moral standard as being rightly associated with some\nparticular condition of society and typical of it; much as the colour\nof red heat, or yellow heat, or white heat, is typical of particular\ntemperatures. And instead of blindly reprobating those among us who do\nnot conform to our present theoretical standard, or even the present\nnormal standard, we should regard them as fragments of a different\nsociety gone astray in time or space.\n\nThus we see that diversity should be tolerated up to the limits\nof the laws that are absolutely necessary to avoid confusion and\nmisunderstanding between members of the same community: and there is no\nconstraining principle which would narrow the variability allowable,\nshort of permitting injustice, hardship, or unfair competition between\nthose who need to work together in mutual confidence and good faith. It\nmay truly be said that civilisation is the means for giving scope to\ndiversity.\n\nUnder stagnant and uniform conditions there may be a fossilised form\nof civilisation; but any living form must yield opportunities for\nindividual effort, and every such opportunity is the making or marring\nof the man who rises to it or who falls before it. The leading\ntenth and the submerged tenth are equally the proof that a living\ncivilisation is doing its work of sorting out the best and getting rid\nof the worst stock.\n\nFrom another point of view, toleration is essential to completion.\nThe enormous variety of character, and ability for special work, is\nall needed in a complete community. There are many \"wrong paradises\"\nin a whole society. We see the necessity for mental diversity, from\nthe pure mathematician who is proud of the inapplicability of his\nresults, through all the successive stages of research work, commercial\nwork, administrative management, and mechanical work, even down to\nmerely automatic work which needs no more mind than a cow's. And it\nis perfectly clear that such mental diversity must have corresponding\nvariety of external life to accommodate it. The student or experimental\nworker finds the disturbances of communal life almost insufferable,\nwhile the mechanical worker would be miserable almost to suicide in\nthe silence and lack of excitement of a life devoted to abstract\nthought or to millionths of an inch. If, therefore, the productions of\nthe externals of life differ so profoundly in a complete society, we\nmust expect and allow equally great differences in all the feelings,\ninstincts, and requirements. One man may have a physical repulsion\nto affecting his mind and condition by stimulants and narcotics, a\nrepulsion that extends more or less to every one addicted to such\ndrugging of the senses. But it would be a misfortune to be without\nthat variety, and the world would be poorer by losing Falstaff, or\neven Bardolph. The utmost we can say is that we should never be blind\nto the bad effects on the community of a low type if it be too widely\ndiffused.\n\nSo long as the extreme parties are but a small portion, and the\ndistribution of variation is normal, most in the middle course and\nthinning away to the upper and lower limits, the society is stable and\nbenefits by its variations. But if the curve of variation is irregular,\nand shows two large groups with fewer in the middle course between\nthem, the condition is dangerous. We had such a condition in England\nin the seventeenth century, and after a long struggle of each group\nto capture the middle party, the separation into two communities took\nplace. The spiritual ancestors of Clifford and Perks and Byles were\nhappy in their paradise of intolerant puritanism in New England, while\nOld England had internal peace for a couple of centuries. Another such\nprocess of fission now seems growing imminent, and it is again the\nquestion as to which group will capture the middle party. The positive\ndanger of a diversity running into two separate groups is notorious in\nhistory. The Copts invited the Arab invasion to rid them of Byzantine\nbondage; the Britons invited the Saxons to save them from their\nneighbours. The ideals of a County Council which will not tolerate a\nquiet square in London, or of labour members who promote marches of\nthe unemployed and unlimited taxation at their will, may drive the\nbest thought in England to the tranquillity of a well-governed capital\nabroad; and as there are many people now who would prefer in England a\nBoer domination to that of the party represented by Cecil, Halifax, and\nRiley, so there are many others who would rather submit to a German\ngovernment of London than to a sacking by a hungry mob. The segregation\ninto two groups with an unstable link between them is fatal to the\nvirtues classed as Patriotism. A studious Englishman would sooner have\na Japanese or Russian professor for a neighbour, than have the average\ndrinking workman and rowdy family who may be his distant cousins. And\nassuredly he would make no personal sacrifices to keep out of England\nany people who were proved to be the moral or intellectual superiors of\nthe rest of his countrymen. We thus see that diversity, however great,\nmust vary about a single centre, if it is to be favourable to society\nas a whole.\n\nLooking at the general domination of modern law it is truly astonishing\nhow much uniformity is possible. But the fact of a uniform law being in\nforce must not blind us to the existence of a great amount of diversity\nbeing now tolerated side by side with it. For instance, we are so\naccustomed to think of only one type of marriage that the various\nstages recognised in Roman law seem astonishing. Yet in legal status\nin England there are ten stages surviving, most of which are tolerated\nby the law. There is (1) royal assent, needful in the royal family,\njust as it is needful in every family in some African communities; (2)\nnormal religious or civil marriage; (3) marriage of divorced persons,\nonly civil; (4) within prohibited degrees, but tolerated socially, as\ndeceased wife's sister, or (5) not tolerated, as uncle and niece; (6)\nquasi-permanent connection with full legal responsibility for children;\n(7) temporary license. Only in case of lack of full consent does the\nlaw step in to punish, in (8) marriage under age, (9) bigamy or (10)\nviolence. Every one of these stages has been normal in some conditions\nof society, and most are normal in some countries even at present. We\nmay, for example, instance (1) normal in Benin; (2) religious marriage\nonly normal in England; (3) normal in Eastern Europe; (4) normal in\nour colonies; (5) normal in Italy; (6) normal in Islam; (7) normal in\nMadagascar in interregnum of sovereignty, and in other countries; (8)\nnormal in India; (9) normal in Islam; (10) normal in most warfare.\nAnd each of these stages carries with it in England different legal\nand social conditions. Again, as regards the period of the marriage\nceremony, the Church has had a long and hard fight to get it recognised\nas a hymeneal ceremony and not a maternity ceremony; yet the latter\nstatus is recognised in law as equal to the former, and it is still\nprevalent among a third of marriages in some Australian colonies, and\nvery largely in England, both in the country from end to end and in\ntown life. On the whole some fifteen hundred years of church pressure\nhas not turned the scale very far against the older custom, which we\nmight well call approximation by trial and error. Such is the diversity\nwhich is yet uncontrolled.\n\nWe must regard society, therefore, as in the above definite subject,\nin the light of a mixture of many stages of evolution. We may still\nsit at table with palaeolithic man, put into modern dress and eating\nmodern dishes it is true, but absolutely in the palaeolithic stage of\nthought and intellect; he is entirely absorbed in the interests of\nhunting wild animals, and devoted to his appliances for the chase,\nwhile incapable of making or improving anything belonging to a higher\nkind of civilisation. Crime and illegalities are very largely merely\nsurvivals of different conditions of society, which the law of the\nmajority has not succeeded in repressing. As such, the more reasonable\nand favourable mode of dealing with them would be deportation to\ncommunities where such actions are still normal. Instead of five years'\nsentence for bigamy, let us exile a man to a Muhammedan country. If we\nwere seriously to establish island communities where theft, violence,\nanarchy, and other phases incompatible with any passable diversity,\nwere still normal and unpunished, we might leave all those who\npreferred to practise such conditions to work out their own life and\nviews with kindred minds.\n\nRegarding now the individual rather than the community, we see in\nmodern education a very serious force acting against that diversity\nwhich is needful for progress. So far as it is a social force, owing\nto the herding together of large masses of children, and so destroying\nfamily types, it is mainly deleterious. The enforcement of trivial\nand senseless regulations by boys themselves is entirely a detriment\nto character, as destroying a habit of dealing with matters on their\nown merits, and creating a terrible bogey of senseless public opinion.\nThe compulsory games and the ordering of the use of personal time,\nis another detriment, for it certainly destroys some ability which\nmight find its footing in the character permanently. But beside the\ndetriment of the system of herding, there is the more direct question\nof the influence of the teaching. Most children begin with a great\ncuriosity concerning the world and their experience of it, a curiosity\nwhich when unguided leads to many unpleasant and inconvenient results.\nHence, instead of guiding it aright, and encouraging the benefits of\nit, the selfish and lazy plan of elders is to destroy and obliterate\nthe reasoning interest in things, and try to enforce in its place a\nknowledge of matters, which are generally less useful, and certainly\nless interesting, than those which a child wants to know about. The\nleading factor of character, the acquisition of knowledge of benefits\nand injuries, of good and of evil, is mainly rooted out; and the new\nplants of abstract ideas and bookwork require generally many years to\ntake good root, if they do so at all. This system lies at the base of\nthe unintellectual character of the average educated Englishman, who\ntakes no useful interest in anything. As an example of this, there is\na foreign land full of interest, scientific, historical, and social;\nfor a quarter of a century hundreds of Englishmen have been there in\ncomfortable official positions with reasonable leisure. Yet there is\nnot a single good memoir produced, not even a hundred pages of original\nmatter, outside of official work, by all this mass of educated minds\nduring nearly a generation. The possibility of what might have been\ndone in such grand opportunities has been stamped out by the education\nwhich they have suffered. They are all of regulation pattern, with as\nlittle variation as is possible between different temperaments\u2014amiable\nupright men, who will leave no trace of anyone being the wiser in\nfuture for their existence. Such is the product of the numbing chill of\nuniformity, and the weeding out of the advancing power of diversity.\n\nWe are all familiar with the epigram of England having a hundred\nreligions but only one sauce; but we see a worse misfortune in the\nabsurd incongruity of now having two hundred religions and only one\nsystem of elementary education. Amid the great variety of minds, which\nis illustrated by the free choice of religious belief and practice,\nwe certainly require a great diversity of education to bring out the\nbest development of each type. We require simultaneous experiment on\na small scale, instead of vast experiments of Acts which apply to\nthe whole country for a generation at a time. Every Act is only an\nexperiment, and one which is usually spoiled by attempting too much\nin a compromise, which is neither fish, flesh, nor fowl. Had there\nbeen in 1870 a hundred schools used for experiment, say five of twenty\ndifferent types in different parts of the country, the life-history\nof the pupils would by now have given us a firm basis for rational\nadjustment of a system. It is fatuous to suppose it possible to make\none Procrustean bed to fit children of the country, the mining centre,\nthe manufacturing district, the commercial town, or the fisher folk\u2014of\nthe Yorkshire tyke, the Suffolk dumpling, or the Hampshire hog. Nor is\nit merely the success of a system in producing examination results that\nhas to be attained. It is quite possible that the best workers in after\nlife may not be the best to cram with temporary bookwork. Nothing short\nof twenty years of active life can test the value of the education on\nwhich it is based.\n\nShould we not at least try the effect of varying amount of control by\nthe central board, the local council, and the teacher himself? May\nnot some latitude in subject be allowed to a teacher, to follow lines\nwhich his own mind is best capable of making useful? Should not a great\ndifference be made between the town, where an infant school is needed,\nto keep children safe while parents are at work, and the country where\nthey can be left to play in the open? Should not country teaching be\nadapted to making agriculturists? Might it not be possible to leave\nchildren entirely in the fields till sixteen, provided that they could\npass in reading at nine, and in figures at twelve, however it was\nlearned? A solid two years' half-timing from sixteen to eighteen, when\nthey valued knowledge, might be worth all they gain in the present\nway. Such are a few of the questions to which answers are necessary,\nbefore we can begin to provide for the diversity of education, which is\ncertainly requisite if we are to make it successful\u2014a help instead of\na detriment in after life.\n\nAnd in more detailed education is it not possible to let a child's mind\ngrow on what is of interest to it\u2014to further it on whatever subjects\nare most attractive and easy to that type of mind, until the habit of\nlearning is so developed that it can be more easily levelled up on\nthe subjects which have been neglected? The mere habit of learning\nand applying knowledge has to be acquired to begin with, and surely\nthe easier subjects are the best on which to practise the power of\nconcentration of mind. The trainer knows that his monkeys cannot be\ntaught unless they can concentrate attention on the subject in hand.\nIn every direction we need to gain diversity\u2014in types of society,\nin customs, in varieties of mind; and to gain this basis for useful\nvariation we must begin by cultivating diversity and providing for its\nsuccess, in place of attacking and crushing it wherever it appears.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nLINES OF ADVANCE.\n\n\nBefore we can imagine what may be lines of possible advance, for the\nindividual or the community, we should base our ideas on observing\nwhat have been the means of advance in the past. Many of the Utopian\nvisions which have been sketched by different writers are in flagrant\ncontradiction of all history and human nature. It is at least far more\nlikely that gain in the future will be on similar lines to those which\nhave been successful in the past, rather than on lines opposed to all\nprevious growth.\n\nThe personal, rather than the communal, advance is the main\nconsideration, inasmuch as it is personal initiative of the most\nable which helps the rest of the community forward. The greatest\nimprovements are the result of a single mind, animating perhaps a small\ngroup of similar minds. We all know how such great benefits as prison\nreform, the abolition of slavery, the restriction of child labour,\nand similar movements of which the public are now proud, were each\noriginated by one mind, and worked by a small group in the teeth of the\nbitterest opposition to start with. It goes without saying that the\nsame is the case in all inventions; it takes not only an inventor, but\nalso a commercial organiser (seldom one and the same man), to help the\npublic to any improvement. If ten thousand men could be picked out of\nany one country, so as to remove the most fruitful minds, that country\nwould come to an entire standstill, and would continue in mechanical\nrepetition until a fresh generation gave a chance of the rise of\noriginal minds. Probably not more than one in a thousand minds causes\nuseful advance among the others. And the majority of men lead automatic\nlives, of which the reflexes have been trained by teaching and\nexperience to do what is required, and the daily actions are performed\nwithout a single real thought, but only in response to external stimuli\nof sights and orders. It is therefore in the development of the able\nindividuals, and in giving every chance to such whenever they arise,\nthat the hopes of the great mass must lie.\n\nIt is perhaps not too much to say that all general popular advance of\nthe community at large is based on the prevention of waste. Wherever\nwaste exists improvement is possible; and we need not trouble ourselves\nmuch about the construction of the social organism, so long as we can\nlay our finger on the waste and check it. As with a machine we know\nthe amount of force that is put into it, and can see what percentage\nis yielded up usefully in its output, so it is with a community. The\ndesign of the nature and quality of work done by the community or the\nmachine is another matter; though that again comes under the head of\nwaste if the quality is bad. We will now look more precisely at the\ngains by prevention of waste in health, life, energy, and renewal.\n\nThe saving of health is one of the greatest steps that has been made,\nas it has been suddenly performed within a generation. Man had\nunconsciously conquered bacteria to a great extent by the invention\nof cooking, and by the experimental learning of cleanliness; but the\nscientific attack on bacteria and protozoa has given the prospect\nof preventing all epidemic disease, and largely increasing the\nefficiency of man in the most fertile countries. This advance means\nthe economic exploitation of the whole tropical regions, which\u2014with\ncheap transport\u2014will provide an immense fresh basis for the advantage\nof other lands. The gain in antiseptic surgery, giving safety for\noperation on all internal organs, as it only affects the small\nproportion of sick and injured, is not of so much general importance as\nthe conquest of the microorganisms, which have hitherto ruled the best\npart of the world. It is in the complete domination over all forms of\nlife, however minute, that we shall find one of the greatest lines for\nfuture advance. Only a small band of workers, about one in a hundred\nmillion of the world's population, has made this advance possible.\n\nThe saving of life is another great step which will give man far higher\npower; not only in the mere hindrance of death, but far more in the\nincreased power of work _per_ day. The power of continuity of work\nis a growth of civilisation; and it is obvious that a man who can do\ntwelve hours' work _per_ day, instead of six hours, not only lives\nvirtually twice as long, but costs the community only half as much\nfor what he does. This continuity of work, or industry, is seen in\nboth high and low classes of work. Some races can do more than twice\nas much agricultural work in the day as others. The same is true of\nscientific or commercial work. And there have been some of the highest\nminds which could only work for two hours a day, while others could\nwork up to fourteen or sixteen hours daily. This power of continuity\nof work is obviously then a matter improvable by cultivation, both in\nthe individual and in the race; and as it may easily double a man's\neffective life it is certainly a line of great promise for the future.\n\nAnother direction for saving a portion of life is in the rapidity of\nthought and action. It is easy to find a difference of two or three\ntimes the amount of work _per_ hour between different men. All that we\nhave just said about the continuity of work applies to its rapidity;\nand a large gain may be looked for in cultivating pace and vigour. We\nneed hardly note that trades-union ideals would destroy instead of\npromoting these most promising and fruitful lines of advance.\n\nIn transport from place to place the movement at fifty miles an hour\ninstead of five means a gain of several years of life to most men.\nBut here we have probably reached the useful limits, as any possible\nfurther saving would not yield much more time.\n\nThe saving of energy is another form of the question of continuity of\nwork. The ideal of work\u2014as varied as possible, and as interesting as\npossible\u2014being the joy of life and the greatest good, is an aim hardly\nyet grasped by more than a very few persons. To the majority, work is\na hateful thing, to be done solely in order to get means for enjoyment\nin some other way. This essentially savage and uncultivated ideal\nneeds to be steadily rooted out by the better adaptation of work to\nthe individual. An education which started by cultivating the natural\ninterests, using them for mental development, and only superadding\nwhat further knowledge was really requisite for life, would greatly\nhelp to eradicate the false and low idea of work which prevails. There\nis a common feeling that business cannot be interesting in itself; but\nthere are few, if any, businesses which if intelligently followed will\nnot yield scope for some real interest of observation and study. The\ngreater application of mind to the work of life will leave far less\nscope for fruitless amusement and\u2014as a great painter remarked\u2014\"there\nis nothing of interest in life to be compared with work.\"\n\nTo minds which are incapable of continuity of work, or of relaxation\nby variation of work, mere amusements are needful. Darwin's health\nprevented more than two hours' work a day, and the flimsiest of\nnovels was his needful relaxation. But the need of amusement for this\npurpose must be taken as the index of incapacity for continuity\u2014as\nan unfortunate failure of mental and physical health\u2014as a disastrous\ndefect when it occurs along with great abilities which can only\nthus work at low speed. The same may be said of athletics; the need\nof physical exercise outside of work is an index of incapacity for\nphysical health adapted to the work, an unfortunate failure of those\nwho are of defective condition. The idea that no one can be too strong\nand robust is a wild exaggeration; physical strength needs to be\nproportioned to the nature of work, and a slender wiry man will do far\nbetter for indoor life than a plethoric mass of brawn and muscle which\nneeds much exercise to keep in health. Unlimited robustness is not an\nabsolute good, to be pursued at all costs, or else we should make\nevery schoolboy a Hun, living without shelter, and feeding on flaps of\nraw meat which form the only saddle of his horse. In brief, the need\nof athletics shows a weakness of body to be remedied, or a physical\nover-development unsuited to the person's work in life; it is the mark\nof unfitness, and the need ceases so soon as a man is adapted to his\nwork. The need of spending any considerable time on amusement is the\nsign of an incapacity, which has to be removed by strengthening the\nmind in the individual or in the race. The passion for amusement is\nthe sure evidence of a defective education, which has left the mind\nincapable of continuity, or bare of interests. An important advance\ntherefore lies in better use of the time which is at present wasted in\nfruitless action of mind or body; better adaptation and education for\nthe work of life will gradually raise the standard so that this form\nof waste will be avoided. We do not expect a uniform type of horse to\nbe equally adapted to draught or hunting or racing; and similarly we\nought to specialise on different types of men fitted for agriculture,\nor mechanical work, or office work.\n\nThe great subject of the waste by renewal of the population in each\ngeneration has an immense variety of aspects; but the essential\nimportance of it is seen when we reflect that about half the labour of\nthe world is swallowed up in this renewal. The burden of production, of\nrearing, of education, and the waste and loss in the process, exceeds\nthat of any other activity, such as supply of food or shelter, for\nthe adult. Hence any possible saving in this great mass of labour, or\nreduction of waste, is of the first importance to the individual and\nthe race.\n\nThose who have proposed temporary marriage hardly seem to have\nconsidered that one of the most important economies adopted, perhaps\ndating from a pre-human period, was that of permanent marriage. This\nsaved at a stroke the enormous loss of time and energy in the rivalries\nof repeated mating. The gain to the race by leaving the members free\nfor continuous work is greater than the loss by reproducing inferior\nstocks. There is no need for the system to have been intentionally\nadopted for this purpose; but merely a race which economised the time\nof repeated mating would soon oust a race in which it was customary.\nFor this reason any fancied reconstruction of society without permanent\nmarriage is entirely futile; even if it could be universal, yet the\nadvantage given to the lazy and emotional type of man above the\ncontinuous worker would soon pull down the race. One frequent argument\nfor a more revocable union is the number of divorces effected or\ndesired. But nearly all such are among people whose judgment in any\nother line of life would certainly not be trusted, and who habitually\nget into trouble over other communal obligations. To abolish marriage\nfor their benefit would be as reasonable as allowing all debts to be\nrepudiated because such people cannot pay their I.O.U.'s. There is\nmoreover a great gain in permanent marriage when judiciously effected,\nby the new mental pivot of a sense of permanent ensurance of various of\nthe conditions of life, which liberates the attention of both parties\nfrom a large number of points, and leaves each free to concentrate\nattention on a partial phase of feelings and duties. It is a far higher\nand a spiritual counterpart of a successful business partnership,\nwhere each member trusts the other to manage a different part of the\naffair. All this mental economy and help would be impossible without\npermanence.\n\nAnother wastage which has been greatly reduced in modern times is that\nof high birth rate and high death rate. The allusions in mediaeval\ntimes show a state much like that now described among the Slovenes,\nwhere incessant maternity is only balanced by the reduction of children\ndue to filth, neglect, and bad conditions. The modern ideal of a small\nfamily carefully tended is an immense advance, both for the individual\nlife and for the saving of waste. But its benefits should be sought and\nnot commanded. If the neglectful, dirty, and wasteful stocks of low\ntype in our midst let their children die off, it is the only balance\nto their overgrowth, which would soon outnumber the better class of\npopulation. The right end to begin at is by insisting on hard work and\ntidy living, under penal enactments; the saving of the children may\nthen be left to take care of itself. To begin at the sentimental end,\nas is now the fashion, is to degrade the whole race by swamping it with\nthe worst stocks.\n\nThe line of progress in invention is the remorseless \"scrapping\" of\npoorer machines. The more serious the progress becomes, the more\nscrapping needs to be done. We must not be surprised then if a sign\nof human progress of mind and body should be the large number of\ninefficients who are thrown out of work on the scrap heap of society.\n\nIn another direction advance has been made by general lengthening of\nthe stages of life. The early marriage and early deaths of past times\nbrought the cost of renewal at every twenty years, which was a much\nseverer tax on the community than renewal in thirty or forty years.\nThere is probably also a great benefit in the higher development of\nparents before each generation. It is well recognised how the later\nchildren of a family are more able, and of a more finished quality than\nthe earlier; great examples of such a view in older literature being\nJoseph and David, and in our own history, Alfred. The longer growth of\nmind before each generation appears to be a great gain of advance for\nthe race. Among the lower races, by far the most advanced are those\nlike the Zulu, which have a long period of hard training and active\nlife before settling down to family duties.\n\nThe often debated problem dealing with the human refuse of bad stocks\nis one which presses most on an advanced civilisation. We will not do\nlike the Christian Norseman, when he put the ne'er-do-weel family into\na wide grave in the churchyard, and wiped his hands of them. We will\nnot even leave them to exterminate themselves by their own follies,\nvices, and ignorance. But if the state takes up the burden of such\nwastrels it must have an entire control of them. Responsibility without\nrule is worse than rule without responsibility. The only safe course\nis a rigorous enforcement of parental duties; with the alternative of\npenal servitude in state workshops, the mother and children together,\nthe father elsewhere. There is no middle course, of semi-maintenance\nby school meals, which will not injure the children by their being\ncorrespondingly neglected at home, injure the parents by lowering the\nspur of necessity to work, and injure the state by flooding it with the\nworst types.\n\nMuch more drastic treatment of the unfit has been advocated, as by\nDr. Rentoul. In a future period of civilisation a logical course of\ntreatment might have a chance of adoption; but in our age any serious\nchanges of the habits of thought and action will not be tolerated,\nunless brought about very gradually under small influences, such as\nwe have noticed as acting through taxation. What we need is to try to\ngive effect to the gospel of giving to him that hath, and taking away\nfrom him that hath not. The most likely opening for such a line of\nadvance would be giving partial state maintenance to the best stocks,\nso as to ensure large returns from them, and taxing down the worst\nstocks\u2014exactly the opposite course to the present craze. Let us try to\nrealise if there be a practical system for this advance.\n\nWe should need a Board of Health in each area of about 10,000\ninhabitants, composed of three examining doctors. Every child on\nleaving school, or at about fifteen, should be examined, merely by a\nglance at the greater bulk of normal cases, but carefully in extreme\ncases. The finest 5 per cent. both mentally (shown by school-leaving\ncertificates) and physically as well, should be premiated by assisted\nhigher education of suitable type. The worst 10 per cent. should be\nremanded to a training school where physical and mental development\nwould be scientifically carried out, and as much profit as possible\nmade from their labour toward self-support. This would reclaim the\nhooligan class effectually before they run amuck, and help on those\nwho need care and assistance to get a good footing in life. No course\ncould possibly be kinder for the weaklings. At the age of twenty a\nfurther examination of both the best and the worst classes should\nensue. The best half of the most able should receive a certificate\ngranting them practically free support for all children they may have\nafter they have reached the age of twenty-five. The worst half of the\nmost incapable, or 5 per cent. of all, should be required to report\nresidence during their lives to the Board of Health of their district,\nand informed that if they had any children they must pay a heavy fine,\nor else go into servitude. This would practically mean the segregation\nof the lowest class of the unfits under compulsory work. It would be\ncheaper to the state to keep them thus at work, than to pay poor rates\nto maintain this submerged twentieth and their helpless families.\n\nIn all these proposals there would be no Socialistic constraint of the\ngreat majority, which is normal in mind and body. But such attention\nto the unfit would be merely adding a porch to the poorhouse, the\nhospital, and the asylum, and there sorting over the material which can\nbe possibly saved from a bad end. The nine-tenths of people who were\nordinary would be thus left even more free for individual growth than\nthey now are, when hampered by the inefficient residue.\n\nWe might not exclude the thought of another favourite idea of some\nreformers which in a modified shape might be allowed to gradually take\nroot. Since Spencer Wells familiarised the world with an operation\nfor which he will always be remembered, hundreds of women have\ngladly improved their health by a safe treatment, which, if anything,\nthreatened to become too fashionable. Every woman who was, as above,\nrequired to report her residence as being unfit, and being liable to\nheavy penalties on having children, should be offered the option of\nperfect freedom if she chose the operation. The marriage of such women,\nwith men who were condemned as unfit, would entirely free both parties\nfrom reporting and inspection in future, and give the best prospect\nof happy lives to the weakest and less capable of the community, free\nfrom what would be only too truly \"encumbrances\" to such people. This\ncourse might give a permanently safe line of improvement, without any\nconsequent stigma or hardship in the world around; and so gentle a\nchange\u2014beneficial to the individual as well as the community\u2014seems\nnot outside of future possibilities. At least such a course would be\nthe more practicable form of such a proposed change. Of course, no such\nlegislation would be complete in its action, and evasions would often\noccur. But if it checked even one half of the growth of bad stock it\nwould be an enormous gain.\n\nWe now turn to other lines of advance from the communal point of view.\nThe old system of community, in which all the nations of northern\nEurope lived, was based on each man being his brother's keeper;\nevery one was liable to fines if any relative committed a crime, in\nproportion to their closeness of relation. To this succeeded individual\nresponsibility, both in property and in penalties. This raises the\nquestion whether it is possible to separate property and penalty in\ncommunism. At present the tendency is to a state communism, begun\nby heavy death duties and taxation (for a variety of purposes which\nthe taxed do not use or require), amounting to a quarter of all\nproperty. If this system is extended, and property becomes more largely\nhypothecated to public purposes, then when a man is condemned in\nheavy damages or fines his neighbours will suffer by reduction of the\nrateable property. Will it not be thought more fair for his relatives\nto be responsible for the public loss? And if so, we indirectly revert\nto the payment by relatives of a share of all fines.\n\nTo anyone who has had experience of combined labour, it is obvious how\ntwo people working together do not perform twice as much as one alone.\nThere is always a loss by one waiting on the action of another; and\nit appears as if the amount of work done only increased as the square\nroot of the number of people working together. Hence the group-work\nof communistic taste is very wasteful. This is practically seen among\nthe Slavs in Russia, where communal agriculture\u2014which is extolled\nby its admirers\u2014produces far less _per_ acre on fine land, than is\nobtained by individual agriculture on poor land in England. Again it is\nnotorious how the Irishman who goes to work apart among individualist\npeople, then flourishes as he never does when held down by the communal\nclaims socially enforced among his own countrymen. This is the root\nof the success of the Irish out of their own land. Thus we see how\ncommunal action is the more wasteful form of labour; and how it was a\ngreat advance for man when he made individual success entirely depend\nupon individual labour.\n\nAnother question is what form of government will most favour the\nstrong breeds and the new strains of ability as they arise? Certainly\nany system which ties the actions of one person with those of others is\ndetrimental to ability. The better man is held back by the co-operation\nwith others, by their lower example, and by their direct disfavour. Any\ncommunistic tie is unfavourable to advance; and it was a great step\nin favour of new and improved variations when each individual stood\nentirely on his own resources, and was not bound by his inferior kin.\nIn every way, therefore, individualism was a line of advance for men in\nthe past; and the principles which are involved promise that it will\nyet likewise be the main line of future advance. If we look practically\nat which class of government is associated with advance of ideas, of\ninventions, and new types of thought, let us put on one hand the more\nindividualist countries, America, England, Germany, and perhaps France,\nand on the other hand the more communist countries, Switzerland,\nNorway, Ireland, Greece, Australia, and especially New Zealand. Can\nwe question for a moment which type of country is most advancing the\nintellect and abilities of man?\n\nBut we must not forget that Union is strength, the motto that Belgium\nstrangely took on separating from Holland; and combined action has\ngreat advantages. In this view the beneficial combination is that\nto which all contribute without one being a hindrance to the other.\nHow far can these benefits be gained without loss to the improved\nindividual? The main principle is that all combinations must be\nentirely voluntary, and have no suspicion of coercion about them.\nWhere even \"peaceful persuasion\" comes in, ability is crushed, and\nthe whole community is the loser by it. Coercive union of individuals\nis the unpardonable sin against human nature, because it kills the\nhopes of the future. The safe line of advance is combination by\nlarge clubs for every purpose, with healthy rivalry between similar\ninstitutions\u2014benefit clubs, co-operative stores, co-operative works,\nholiday clubs, and insurance of all kinds. Every inducement should be\nheld out to join in such combinations, giving them the assistance and\nsecurity of official auditors, as is provided for friendly societies\nat present Every line in which any class can profitably unite for\neconomic action, on an entirely voluntary basis, and without any tie\non the individual beyond his share in the enterprise, is a clear gain\nto society. In this way the taxation for these ends would fall on\nthose who benefit by them, and not on those who do not want them. Thus\nthe individual would be free to take, or leave alone, the benefits\nprovided; and many purposes to which taxation is now applied would\nbe far better effected by gigantic clubs of those classes who want\nsuch assistance. Taxation must be strictly limited to those purposes\nin which all persons must necessarily share, such as protection and\njustice.\n\nHence a future line of advance lies in a great development of purely\nvoluntary co-operation in any one class, in order to obtain the\nadvantages of combination. In one direction it is clear what immense\nsavings might be thus effected. Co-operative purchase of supplies and\ncooking, with distribution of hot meals to subscribers, would save\nperhaps a third of the cost of living to the working classes. And if\nthe prepaid weekly subscriptions might be deducted before wages were\nreceived, such a system would go far to solve the question of proper\nfeeding of children. Again, the education of hand-workers in the\nsubject of economics can be best furthered by the experience gained in\nco-operative works, and even on this ground alone every encouragement\nshould be given to such combinations of workers.\n\nAnother line of advance now coming into practical view is the use of\nvarious nationalities, according to their abilities for different\nkinds of works in foreign countries. We have seen, in Europe, Italian\nminers taken to many lands for tunnelling and submarine work, we have\nNorwegians largely employed in our shipping, and English engineers\nfind many careers abroad. Of recent years the great mass of cheap\nskilled labour of China and Japan has been getting its due share of\nthe world's work. The infamous manner in which the Chinese have been\ntreated in America is apparently now nearly at an end; the Republic\nwhere all men are free and equal will be coerced into fairness by the\nreasonable refusal to take American goods as long as the Americans will\nnot take Chinese labour. In British Columbia the Japanese are objected\nto because they are more industrious, more economical, more sober\nand quiet than the white, who, as their inferior in these principal\nrespects, cannot bear their competition. The Americans are likewise\ntrying to prevent their industry, while at the same time wishing to\nmake the Panama Canal with Chinese labour; in this they will probably\nbe rebuffed, unless the whole national position is put on a fair basis.\nThe objections to Chinese labour in South Africa have never been put\non the real fact\u2014tacitly felt, though unexpressed\u2014that the white\ndreads the competition of an economical people. First they were said to\nbe tortured in slavery, a lie which served its big political purpose\nuntil it was found that they would not leave; then the danger of public\ncrime and burglary was put forward, until it was shown that there\nwere fewer criminals in proportion than among other inhabitants; then\na cry of immorality was raised, until the Colonial Secretary stated\nthat the Kaffirs who would replace them had just the same habits. Now\nthe Transvaal refuses to destroy its own welfare by the falseness of\nplaying with any of these cries; but such hatred to free labour has all\nserved the political ends which were intended by an unscrupulous party\nthat revels in keeping a conscience. Meanwhile the Prussian Board of\nAgriculture desires to import Chinese agriculturists into Germany; and\nit will be strange if the great German coalfields in South Wales are\nnot run by the cheapest labour that can be obtained. We have no laws\nto prevent Chinese working freely in England, and we cannot afford to\nwreck our great China trade by starting a gross injustice of exclusion.\n\nIf objections are felt\u2014by a people so immoral as ourselves\u2014to the\ntoleration of any habit of foreign residents, let it be legislated upon\nequally for all nationalities in England. In this way the Canadians\nexpelled the rowdy negroes who had taken refuge with them in the days\nof slavery. A rigid and impartial punishment of rowdyism cleared out\nthe undesirable negro, and left the inoffensive behind. The only\npossible course of safety is not by any laws directed against any\none race; for when such laws break down in the growth of the future\nthere will be a terrible economic\u2014if not political\u2014catastrophe.\nRigid laws to check evils of all inhabitants of a country alike are\nsound and safe, and will prevent most of the objectionable results of\nimmigration, Jewish, Italian, Chinese, or any other. With such laws a\ngreat advance can be made by the free use of that kind of labour which\nis most adapted to the work, whatever source it may come from. Such\nmust inevitably be the course of the distant future; and those who\nplay with holding what they please to call a \"white man's land\" will\nfind that \"mean whites\" of hot countries are wholly inferior to other\nraces which are fitted for such a position. Bret Harte has well stated\n\"the conscious hate and fear with which inferiority always regards the\npossibility of even-handed justice, and which is the key-note to the\nvulgar clamour about servile and degraded races.\"\n\nAnother subject which has seemed to be a most promising line of advance\nis that of the reduction or abolition of warfare. We must not limit\nour view in this to open and direct violence, there are other forms of\nwarfare quite as effective, and causing as much, or more, misery in the\ntotal. The warfare of trade is always going on, each nation is pushing\nits neighbours as much as it can for its own benefit. Some gain benefit\nby closed markets and bleeding a monopoly, others benefit by open\nmarkets, and each fights for what it wants by trade methods backed with\nforce. The free trader honestly believes that all this can and should\nbe abolished by each country producing what it is best fitted for, and\na tacit or legal understanding that there is to be no trade rivalry on\nthe various lines thus assigned to different countries. Such would be\nthe only system which could abolish trade warfare. Under such a system\nadvance would be greatly checked, if not killed. Look at the history\nof quinine; only twenty years ago it was 10_s._ an ounce, and the\ngrowers (though competing among themselves) did not think they could\nimprove the process or reduce the price. The chemist in Europe stepped\ninto the market and smashed the old system by much cheaper artificial\nquinine. But the growers, sooner than be ruined, invented extraction by\npetroleum, and brought down the price to 1_s._ 6_d._ an ounce. Now here\nwere two acts of violent trade warfare between countries; the result\nbeing such an improvement that instead of one of the most life-saving\nmedicines being a luxury, it can now be used six times more freely than\nbefore. Without trade war this would never have come about. Free trade\nimplies free competition, and that is trade-warfare.\n\nAnother form of trade war is holding a country for the sake of a\nmonopoly of trade, thus enabling a group of manufacturers\u2014say of\nFrance\u2014to tax all the inhabitants under their government, especially\nin colonies\u2014as Algiers, Madagascar, Tahiti, &c. This is simply a form\nof tribute, like the taxation levied by Rome on various conquered\ncountries; it holds back the taxed countries. If other countries wish\nto get a share of that trade they will have to fight, by trade or by\nviolence, to conquer the right to join in it. And a trade war which\nshut, say, all English markets to France, until all French markets\nwere open to England, would not violate any economic principle. It\nis meeting force by force, exclusion by exclusion; and no shudder at\nour using trade war ourselves will prevent for an instant the trade\nwar which is used against us. Our principles will not weigh a feather\nin other nations' practice. But warfare is a temporary measure, and\nretaliation must only be temporary. The great danger would be in\nestablishing a permanent system of taxation of foreign productions,\nwhich would be worked to the utmost by trades unions at home, in order\nto enable them to bleed the country to death by high prices. This\nterrible danger of ruin is the main reason against protective duties,\nthough seldom, if ever, noticed in public discussion of the subject.\n\nAnother form of warfare is the relative burden of armaments. This may\nbe called slow combustion, in contrast to the open flame of war. Now if\nthere is no joint limitation\u2014as at present\u2014the most long-sighted and\npowerful nation stands to win at this game; the result is the same as\nif actual war were in progress, but the terrors and destruction of war\nare avoided. But if there be a joint limitation of armament\u2014as some\nhope may be established\u2014it must be on such a basis that no one state\nis left in a condition of clear superiority to another, otherwise it\nwould tie the inferior state to be in a permanently inferior condition.\nAnd the qualities which will win will be subterfuge, evasion, and bad\nfaith; whichever state contrives to be better prepared than another\nbehind the agreement will stand to win when the war does come. In the\nunlimited condition the qualities win which are those best for mankind\nin all other respects; in the limited condition the qualities will\nwin which are worst for mankind otherwise. The real fact is that great\narmaments are like great states, a needful condition of the new speed\nof communication. When it took two or three months to move an army\nfrom central Europe to England, we had two or three months to prepare;\nwhen it takes only two or three days we must be always prepared. No\none can put the clock back, and steam is the end of small armaments.\nWithin a generation of quick transport being started, big armaments\nwere found needful, and will never cease to be needful. Great permanent\ncombinations of states are the only line of relief under the new\nconditions, which bind mankind for ever in the future.\n\nLet us look now at direct war. What are the qualities which tell\nfor success, looking to the wars of recent times with which we are\nfamiliar? In the brains of the army the main qualities have been (1)\nForesight; (2) Combining power; (3) Honesty; (4) Imagination; (5)\nSkill; and in the muscle of the army (6) Physique; (7) Industry;\n(8) Tenacity. In short, success in war requires precisely the same\nqualities as success in peace. Even if the cause is bad, yet it is the\nbest man all round that wins. In each case recently the winner has\nbeen the better power for future civilisation. War then may be defined\nas the concentration into a year of the same results which would take\nplace by economic causes within perhaps a generation or a century. So\nfar as violent changes are undesirable\u2014as we have noticed before\u2014so\nfar war is undesirable. But on the purely humanitarian view it may be\nbetter to flee before one's enemies for three months than have three\nyears' famine; it may be better to kill 100,000 in a brief campaign\nthan starve a million during a whole generation by bad trade owing to\nslow economic changes. War strikes the imagination and impresses the\nthoughtless with its horror, but a starving peace may be a far more\npainful process.\n\nIt is difficult to see that any of the causes of trade war, armament\nwar, or open war are at all likely to be less in the future than they\nhave been in the past; and if the causes are the same we must expect\nlike effects. Nor do we see that any result of these different kinds of\nwar is injurious to that character of man which is requisite for his\nadvance in better lines. Each of these forms of competition tends to\ngive an advantage to the best qualified race, and to promote the most\nbeneficial strains of character. On the general principle that slow\nevolution is preferable to violent changes we must look for advance by\nintensified trade war rather than by armaments, and by the strain of\narmament rather than by open war.\n\nA direction in which great improvements of organisation may be\nattained would be in better adaptation of checks. So far as possible,\nchecks should be abolished by establishing interests in the same\ndirection between different parties. The profit-sharing movement is\nan excellent beginning of what needs to be fully and exactly carried\nout. The checks of inspection, which have been so greatly multiplied\nlately, are peculiarly liable to abuses; and a system of fewer and far\nsuperior inspectors, much less inspection, and much heavier penalties\nto correspond, would in the long run prove the safer line. The great\ncheck by popular election is very wasteful, a general election costing\nthe country over a million pounds in various ways. Precisely as fair a\ncheck would be gained by summoning one in a hundred of the electors by\nlot at the day of election; and the nursing of a constituency would be\nmuch diminished.\n\nLastly, let us look at the final type to which man will probably be\nled by natural survival. This enquiry is limited throughout to those\nqualities which are the product of external causes; and no attempt\nis made to estimate the more spiritual side of man or his higher\nmental development. For that we have not the same physical basis\nof research, and it would be a fruitless mixture to include such\nconsiderations\u2014however important\u2014in an enquiry which by its scope\nmight be similarly applicable to lower organisms. We are therefore\ndealing here only with the physical basis of civilisation.\n\nFor the sake of safety from aggression and prevention of small\nquarrels, federations of great size must prevail; while those\nfederations which allow for the greatest diversity between the states\nwill prove more adaptable and vigorous. Similarly, states which allow\nof the greatest diversity of life to the individual will succeed best,\nby the promotion of the most vigorous strains. More systematic law\nwill be needed between states. This may perhaps be on the line of all\ncontracts being on the seller's law, and all marriage on the husband's\nlaw, regardless of change of residence; and all contracts being suable\non their own law in any state.\n\nThe greatest empires have in the past allowed great diversity between\nstates. Persia left each land to its own laws, and only required the\ncontrol of a satrap, a small tribute, and unification of army and navy.\nRome interfered very little with local law, and left the principal\ncities autonomous throughout the empire. Britain has carefully\npreserved local law where a system existed, as in India, the Cape,\nand many varieties nearer home, even in England itself. The United\nStates have kept local laws of states and local legislatures. Hence\nit is likely that groups of states with great variety of type will\nprevail, only unified by a common system of defence and compulsory\ntaxation for that purpose. It is even conceivable that such a system\nmight be established in England, if the Privy Council was supplemented\nby Colonial ex-ministers of long standing, and was granted powers of\nassessment over all parliaments for the common defence.\n\nThe type of man which must prevail is that of the greatest industry and\ngreatest individuality; each man belonging to many voluntary societies\nfor various united benefits. Agriculture, the main industry of man,\nwill be far more elaborate and economical; as much so as the present\nChinese system, or even carried to further detail with machinery. And\nthe unlimited supply of atmospheric nitrates, now in sight, will also\ngreatly increase production. Profit-sharing or the shareholding of\nall workers must gradually prevail in all industries. The growth of\nrapidity of thought and action, and the economy of organisation, will\nenable a living to be earned with perhaps half a day's labour, or less.\nThe large balance of time, beyond that which will be needed for bare\nnecessities, will be spent on a much greater development of natural\nresources and conveniences of life; each man will thus enjoy the result\nof an immense accumulated capital of improvements and benefits. In\nshort, each one will be rich, either by the cheapness of articles or\nabundance of money, a merely relative question. The accumulated wealth\nof improvement will leave a smaller profit on labour, or in other words\ncapital will command a very low interest. Therefore there will be\nless inducement to work for saving; and hence spare time will be more\nreadily employed in the personal quest of knowledge, and enlargement\nof mental interests, in literature, in science, in history, and in the\narts, or among the less capable in mere amusements. But the higher the\nsocial organisation and reward of ability, the more intense will be the\nweeding of the less capable, and the more highly sustained will be the\ngeneral level of ability.\n\nThat fluctuation will occur is inevitable; but it will be gradually\nunderstood that the utmost freedom of labour and communication is the\nonly way to allow changes to be gradual, and so to avert the great and\ndisgraceful catastrophes of forcible migration of hordes. Hence there\nwill tend to be an incessant flow of labour from country to country,\nassisted by international labour bureaus: thus the wage of any given\nability will be equalised over the world, and hence prices of all\nproduce will equalise also. The whole of this action will further\nenforce the power of ability, and tend to end or mend the less capable.\n\nWe must, then, look for a world with approximately equal civilisation\nand prices in all lands; but with each people developed in their\nown lines of ability, in accord with climate and conditions, to\nsuch a point that no other people can compete with them in their own\nconditions. The equatorial races tending to have less initiative\nand vigour than those of colder climates, the equatorial lands will\ntherefore tend to be each attached to a temperate land which will\nsupply more energy to their development; while a steady drift of\npopulation from colder to hotter lands will take place, as for a\ngeneration or two they will retain a greater vigour. Thus the tropics\nwill be the seat of the keenest competition and extinction of races;\nwhile the borders of the arctic regions will always afford most room\nfor human increase.\n\nSo far as peoples turn their backs on the inevitable goal, they\nwill have to painfully retrace their course, or else disappear by\nextinction; while the peoples who move toward the lines of success will\nbe the fathers of the future. Will they be found in East or West?\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n  A.\n\n  Ability, inherited, 4\n    sporadic, not inherited, 5\n    driven out, 3, 4, 8, 21\n    favoured by war, 98\n\n  Administration depends on character, 1\n\n  Advance checked by communism, 20, 21\n    checked by education, 73-75\n    due to individual, 78, 80\n    gained by saving waste, 79\n\n  Agriculture, elaboration of, 101\n    to be saved from townsmen, 54\n\n  Amusement, passion for, 20, 82, 83\n\n  Anarchism, product of great states, 67\n\n  Armaments, big, needful, 98\n    war by, 97\n\n  Artificial conditions encourage variation, 5\n\n  Athletics, needed by the unfit, 82\n\n  Atrophy of mind, 7-9\n\n  Aurelian, 36\n\n  Automatic lives of majority, 79\n\n\n  B.\n\n  Barbaric society, complex, 21\n\n  Bartholomew's Day, 1662, 41\n\n  Benevolence, scope of, v.\n\n  Betting, 19\n\n  Birth rate, waste of high, 85\n\n  Bricklayers' Union, influence of, 31\n\n  Building, dear in England, 31\n\n  Bye-laws, value of, 44\n\n\n  C.\n\n  Capacity, _see Ability_.\n\n  Capital used for income, 47\n\n  Capitalists, result of diminishing, 50\n\n  Catastrophes produced by small causes, 42\n\n  Cattle, competition among, 25\n\n  Change, gradual, to be allowed, 43\n    effect of, 13, 63\n    violent, injurious, 41\n\n  Character, the basis of society, 1\n    production of, 2\n    subject to natural law, 2\n    low type at present, 15-19\n    killed by municipalising, 26\n    grown by experience, 74\n\n  Checks, better use of, 99\n\n  Children, later more able, 86\n    maintenance of, 8, 60, 86-88\n\n  Chinese labour, need for, 93-95\n\n  Civil war, results of, 39-41\n\n  Civilisation a means of diversity, 68\n\n  Clubs, benefit of, 92\n\n  Collections, dispersal of, 46\n\n  Colonising result of primogeniture, 45, 46\n\n  Combinations, must be voluntary, 91\n\n  Combined labour, wasteful, 90\n\n  Committees, mind of, 9\n\n  Commons rule alone, 39-41\n    weakness of, 43\n\n  Communal organisation of early Europe, 22\n\n  Communication, results of, 56, 66, 98\n\n  Communism a bar to useful variation, 20, 21\n    and early Christianity, 24\n    and fatalism, 25, 26\n    and labour, 90\n\n  Compensation for accidents, 58\n\n  Competition, necessity of, 3, 10\n    dislike of, 10\n    among cattle, 25\n\n  Continuity of work, power of, 80, 81\n\n  Co-operation a main line of advance, 92\n\n  Cox, Mr. Harold, 55\n\n  Crimes, survivals of early life, 73\n\n  Criminals to be sorted into communities, 73\n\n  Cromwell an arbitrary ruler, 40\n    value of, in anarchy, 40, 41\n\n\n  D.\n\n  Death duties, effect of, 44, 46\n\n  Despotism, a refuge from anarchy, 41\n\n  Devolution of the Roman Empire, 36\n\n  Diocletian, decree of prices, 37, 38\n\n  Disciples, early, hard-weeded, 24\n\n  Diseases of bodies politic, vi., 19\n\n  Diversity, need of, 65-77, 100\n    of moral standards, 67, 68\n    of types required, 69\n    dangerous form of, 70\n    still existing, 71-3\n    of marriage laws, 71, 72\n\n  Dulness of observation, 16, 17\n\n\n  E.\n\n  Education, a bar to advance, 73-76\n    experiments needed, 75\n    variety of, needed, 75, 76\n\n  Elections, waste by, 100\n\n  Emigration beneficial, 13\n    harmful, 13, 14\n\n  Environment subject to man, 3\n\n  Equatorial races, future of, 103\n\n  Escape of the capable, 8\n\n  Extremes of condition appear together, 5\n\n\n  F.\n\n  Factions of the Civil War, 39, 40\n\n  Farm colonies, 8\n\n  Fatalism and communism, 26\n\n  Federations must prevail, 100\n\n  Five-mile Act, 40\n\n  France, ability drained from, 4\n    cost of Revolution in, 41\n\n  Free-trade only possible with bounties, 52\n\n  Free-will a subject of normal variation, 2\n\n\n  G.\n\n  Gallienus, 35\n\n  German immigration, 15\n\n  Government cannot tax its own payments, 49\n\n  Gracchus, cheap com of, 29\n\n  Gradual changes to be allowed, 43\n\n\n  H.\n\n  Happiness based on character, 2\n\n  Health, saving of, 79, 80\n\n  Housing problem, cause of, 31\n\n  Huguenots closely weeded, 24\n    expulsion of, 4\n\n\n  I.\n\n  Illustrated papers, 18\n\n  Immigration, 14, 15\n\n  Income tax, effect on trade, 47-49\n\n  Individual thought essential, 9\n\n  Individualism a line of advance, 91\n\n  Infant life, saving of, 60\n\n  Inspection, abuse of, 99\n\n  Intellect, limitations of, 17\n\n  Intolerance of Puritans, 39-41, 70\n    gain and loss of, 66\n\n  Investments, foreign, demand for, 48\n\n  Ireland, emigration injuring, 14\n    land-holding in, 53\n\n  Italian labour abroad, 93\n\n\n  J.\n\n  Janus, the peace bringer, vii.\n\n  Japanese too industrious, 93\n\n\n  L.\n\n  Labour, combined, wasteful, 90\n    in the tropics, 56\n\n  Land in Ireland, 53\n    state ownership of, 53-55\n    equal values of, 56\n\n  Laws impartial to all residents, 94\n\n  Life, infant, saving of, 60\n\n  Life-duties, effect of, 49\n\n  Lighting system faulty, 17\n\n  Little-Italy party, 35-37\n\n  Loans, risks of, 55\n\n  Local administration, variety in, 44\n\n  London County Council, 17, 55\n\n  Low races pass under higher, 1\n\n\n  M.\n\n  Malignants deprived, 41\n\n  Man subjugates environment, 3\n    permanence of type of, 10-12\n    final type of, 100-102\n\n  Marriage ceremony, period of, 72\n    laws, diversity of, 71, 72\n    temporary, 84\n\n  Medical examination of children, 87\n\n  Mencius quoted, 7\n\n  Mental changes similar to physical, 2-7\n    qualities inherited, 4\n    growth encouraged by use, 6\n    growth to old age, 6\n\n  Merovings, degradation of, 7\n\n  Middle-class waste, 61\n\n  Mind subject to natural variation, 2-7\n    variability induced, 6\n    arrested at various ages, 6\n    atrophy of, 7-9\n    unchanged in nature, 11-12\n\n  Monopolies, 9, 96\n\n  Moral standard typical of a society, 68\n\n  Morality, relative standard of, 67-68\n\n  Municipalising enterprises, 26\n\n\n  N.\n\n\n  Nationalisation of land, 53-55\n\n  Nationalities, use of various, 93\n\n  New Testament teaching, 23, 24\n\n  Norse poor law, 22, 86\n\n\n  O.\n\n  Officialism, 9\n\n  Old age pensions, 59\n\n  Oman, Prof., 29\n\n\n  P.\n\n  Pasts have all been present, vii.\n\n  Patriotism killed by separate groups, 71\n\n  Permanence of type of man, 10-12\n\n  Peters, Carl, opinion of, 20\n\n  Physical changes similar to mental, 2-7\n\n  Pleasures, low type of, 17-19\n\n  Polybius on history, iv.\n\n  Poverty results from opportunity, 5\n\n  Prayer, Book of Common, proscribed, 40\n\n  Present time, apparent importance of, vii.\n\n  Prices, consequence of regulating, 37, 38\n\n  Primogeniture diminished, 45\n    effect of, 45, 46\n\n  Private enterprise most effective, 9\n\n  Prodigal son, his rights, 24\n\n  Profits to be earned from wealth, 30-32\n\n  Profit-sharing, 92, 99\n\n  Proletariat, support of, 30-32\n\n  Property parted in life, 44, 49\n\n  Proscriptions, disastrous effect of, 4\n\n  Provinces parted from Rome, 36\n\n\n  R.\n\n  Radicalism contrary to evolution, 42\n\n  Railway stations, faulty, 16\n\n  Railways, effects of, 56, 66\n\n  Rapidity, gain by, 81\n\n  Reasoning interest obliterated, 74\n\n  Regulation pattern men, 74\n\n  Relatives, responsibility of, 22, 89\n\n  Remedy for the incapable, 8\n\n  Renewal of population, 83\n\n  Rentoul, Dr., 87\n\n  Responsibility without rule, 86\n\n  Retaliation in trade war, 97\n\n  Retrograde characters ruined by help, 7\n\n  Ruling faculty of man, 3\n\n\n  S.\n\n  Scrapping of machines and men, 85\n\n  Seebohm, Dr., 22\n\n  Selection the means of elevation, 3, 20\n    repressed by communism, 20-27\n\n  Slavery not fatal to Rome, 34\n\n  Sloth a deadly sin, 16\n    now compulsory, 16\n\n  Socialism, use of word, 23\n\n  Society, barbaric complexity, 21\n    a mixture of stages, 72\n    final type of, 100-103\n\n  Sport, 18, 19\n\n  States, large, a result of speed, 66\n\n  Submerged tenth, 6, 14, 69, 88\n\n  Survivals of earlier stages, 72, 73\n\n\n  T.\n\n  Taxation in death duties, 44-46\n    on capital, 47\n    on trade, 47-50\n    in life duties, 49\n    immoral, 50, 51\n    should be felt, 52\n    limitations of, 92\n\n  Taxation of extravagance, 52\n\n  Tenth, submerged, 6, 14, 69\n\n  Theologic morality, 68\n\n  Thought, lack of, at present, 16\n\n  Town, type of, 57\n\n  Townsman favoured, 28\n\n  Trade unionism and sloth, 16, 81\n    in Rome, 29-34\n    compulsory, 30-34\n    and the poor, 30, 31\n    assessment of tax, 32\n\n  Transit, rapid, result of, 56-58\n\n  Trust-man class, 62\n\n  Trusts, creation of, 49\n\n\n  U.\n\n  Unfit, treatment of, 87-89\n\n  Uniformity, evils of, 65, 67\n\n  Unintellectual character, source of, 74\n\n  Utilitarian morality, 67\n\n\n  V.\n\n  Variability induced, 6\n\n  Variation produced by artificial conditions, 5\n    needed for advance, 65, 69\n    about one centre, 70\n\n  Vice not fatal to Rome, 34\n\n  Violent changes injurious, 39-41\n\n\n  W.\n\n  Wages, equality of, 8\n\n  Waltzing quoted, 34\n\n  War by trade, 95\n    by armaments, 97\n    by violence, 98\n    favours best stocks, 98\n    causes, permanent, 99\n\n  Waste, taxation of, 52\n    the bar to advance, 79\n\n  Wealth held by different classes, 60\n\n  White labour dreads competition, 94, 95\n\n  Work, distaste for, 20, 81\n    power of, 80, 81\n    to be adapted to the person, 81, 82\n\n  Workmen, atrophy among, 8\n\n  Workmen's Compensation Act, 58\n\n\n  BRADBURY, AGNEW & CO. LD., PRINTERS, LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\n  Obvious punctuation and spelling errors have been repaired.\n\n  Pg. 108: Added missing sub-topic heading \"I.\" of Index.","title":"Janus in Modern Life","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":30862}