diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62961-0.txt | 7622 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62961-0.zip | bin | 178864 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62961-h.zip | bin | 211388 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62961-h/62961-h.htm | 8550 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62961-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 45602 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 16172 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8d4072d --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #62961 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62961) diff --git a/old/62961-0.txt b/old/62961-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index d0e6645..0000000 --- a/old/62961-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7622 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Tyranny of Shams, by Joseph McCabe - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Tyranny of Shams - -Author: Joseph McCabe - -Release Date: August 17, 2020 [EBook #62961] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TYRANNY OF SHAMS *** - - - - -Produced by David Thomas - - - - - - THE - TYRANNY OF SHAMS - - BY - JOSEPH McCABE - - NEW YORK - DODD, MEAD & COMPANY - 1916 - - -PREFACE. - -THIS book is a frank criticism of most of the dominant ideas and -institutions of our time: a confession of faith in nearly all the more -daring heresies which hold, so to say, the firing line of our -literature: a conception of a new social order and new planetary -arrangement. It is therefore candidly egoistic, and I should like to -explain the circumstances in which it was designed and written. - -It was conceived, and much of it was written, during the long voyage -from Australia to England. At that time I had issued, if I may include -the introduction to English readers of foreign writers, some fifty -publications, and in these I had generally described remote periods of -history, or even remoter periods of the earth's story or distant -regions of the universe. Many had asked me to tell them things more -intimate and important than the way in which stars were formed, or the -manners of extinct Dinosaurs and ancient empresses: asked if thirty -years' study of philosophy, science, and history had given me no -interest in, or light upon, the problems of the hour. In Australasia -this request was made more insistently than ever. Our ancient -prejudices have been transplanted into the soil of the new world, and -they have thriven there, like the gorse, the sparrow, the rabbit, and -so many other pests which sentimental colonists have introduced in -order to remind them of "home." But new ideas also have been -imported, and they find a rich soil in the free, unconventional, -enterprising colonial mind. Men and women are asking the same -questions there as in London and New York. - -The general drift or implication of these questions obsessed me daily -during the slow traverse of the Southern Ocean. Day after day the -great liner visibly rounded this vast ball of metal which we call our -earth; and to me there is no more impressive symbol than this of the -power and the future of man. Some complain that at sea they feel the -earth and man and man's concerns made trivial by the great fires -which blaze through the darker sky. But largeness is not greatness, -and a vast prairie in some inaccessible region does not make less -precious the little plot of earth at your door that you can make -beautiful. Your predominant feeling, when you round the globe and see -with your own eye its limitations, is one of power. This sphere, you -feel, is the principality of man; and there never was a power so -despotic and far-reaching as the power of a united race would be. You -fed as if the earth could be embraced in the arms of a giant, and -humanity is the giant. If men were agreed in their designs, the earth -would be as clay in the hand of the potter. It would prove as passive -and tractable as the child's ball of plasticine--if all, or the -great part of, men and women were agreed as to the shape it was -desirable to impose on it. In our age differences of ideal restrain -the hand and prevent us from giving a fairer face to the earth. The -power of a united mankind would be something akin to omnipotence. -Every man or woman who has seen the earth with this larger vision must -seethe with impatience to end this conflict of old traditions and new -ideas which paralyses our hands; to do what he or she can to -accelerate that final harmony of conviction which will set free the -fingers of the Great Potter. That is the controlling sentiment of this -little book. - -It happens that, before the book reaches the public, one of those -traditions which it assails has spread a ghastly devastation over the -face of the earth. For nearly twenty years I have used my slender -opportunities as speaker and writer to denounce the military machine: -to imagine the mighty resources we waste on militarism and war -transferred to those enterprises which seek to brighten the earth and -make the hearts of men and women lighter. Now the little sermon, which -many feeble voices were preaching, is taken up by an orator whose -voice thunders from pole to pole, whose words are blood-curdling -realities. Ten thousand million sterling, perhaps, poured into the sea -in eighteen months: ten million men, perhaps, prematurely blasted off -the earth or stricken for life: and a trail of blood and tears and -misery that all the mighty fertility of the earth will take a -generation to obliterate! Nor does this outpour of horror merely mean -that _one_ feature of our life needs reconsideration. We could not -have retained this military machine, with its ever-present danger of -an appalling calamity, if our minds were generally sane, alert, -unclogged by shams. - -One inquires how it is that a generation which boasts of its wisdom -and humanity can retain this worst survival of barbarism, and one -finds that the evil is connected with a dozen other evils and -protected by a general mental debility. The habit of tracing this -calamity to the peculiar criminality of another nation, and dwelling -only on our own heroism and self-sacrifice in meeting this menace, is -in itself a very grave danger. We may be entirely certain that, as -long as we retain the military machinery for settling quarrels, there -will be wars. How came the machinery to linger amongst us in the -twentieth century? At once we light upon a dozen other disorders of -our life. This remissness in civilising international intercourse -argues a grave indifference to a most important task on the part of -our political servants, and an equally grave absence of pressure and -direction on the part of their supporters. It reveals a dangerously -slovenly condition of our industrial world, a very serious defect in -our educational system, a standing menace in the encouraged -thoughtlessness of the mass of our people, a general flabbiness, -haziness, and anæmia of what may be called the intellectual part of -our public life. - -This is true of all nations,--it may be the turn of the United States, -or Norway, or Argentina tomorrow,--but it is most seriously true of -England. Do not let us fuddle our minds with the kind of rhetoric one -addresses to schoolboys. We have, in the first year of the war, -betrayed a sluggishness, a lack of foresight and initiative, a -feebleness of organisation, which ought to sober any race, however -wealthy. Our Government knew, or ought to have known, since the spring -of 1912, that just this war was threatening us; and, when it occurred, -they made a virtue of the fact that we were "the least prepared -nation in Europe." They took nine months to begin to organise our -resources, or to perceive that it was necessary to do so. Plainly, -there is something profoundly, comprehensively wrong with our public -life. We shall "muddle through," because we have the resources, -and because the Allies outnumber their opponents by fifty per cent. -But if in a future war we are compelled to face a numerically equal -opponent, England will, if she retains these faults, see her royal -standard in the dust. As it is, the cost of our ineptitude will be -prodigious. - -So I am confirmed in my design to declare what seems to me to be wrong -with our life. I choose the form of a direct challenge of old -traditions mainly because they so oppress and benumb the public mind -that new ideals do not get a fair consideration. But it will be found -that behind the series of challenges there is a series of -affirmations, and these make up a constructive ideal of life. Probably -few will accept this ideal in its entirety, though each chapter -advocates a reform which has millions of adherents. It is, however, -not based on any 'ism, least of all on dogmatism. There is a view -of, or attitude toward, life expounded in the first chapter, and -behind each particular claim. But each section deals with a specific -department of life and must find its justification within the limits -of that department. If any regret that the work does not embody a -profound philosophy of life, I must reply that I passed through -philosophy thirty years ago, and came out into science and history in -search of reality: and that philosophers do not seem to me to be -either agreed among themselves or in any close relationship to the -human problems I discuss. - -Many will advise me, too, that a man would do well to conceal the more -offensive of his heresies, in order to gain a more patient hearing for -the others. That is the usual and prudent practice, no doubt; but this -book has been written in a mood of fiery impatience with untruth, and -this has forbidden compromise. Night by night, as I sit on the deck of -the ship, I watch the dark purple pall drop swiftly over the last -flush of the tropical sky; and I know that, each night, it shrouds the -faces of thousands of men, women, and children whose chance of -happiness is gone for ever. We are arguing to-day about man's -ailments just as the Greeks were arguing in the Agora at Athens two -thousand years ago, or as men argued in the garden of Plato or of -Epicurus. Meantime almost countless millions have lived in pain and -squalor, and died in delusive hope, under the curse of those ancient -traditions which we will not discard. Therefore I am impatient: I -cannot sit in quiet enjoyment of the sunshine that is granted me. It -will be found that no man appraises more highly than I the advance we -have made in modern times, and that I nowhere exaggerate the darker -features of life. If at times I write fiercely, cynically, even -bitterly, it is not from pessimism, but from fulness and fire of -optimism. My controlling thought is, as I said, a consciousness of our -power. - -There are two types of people into whose hands this book may fall. The -first is the man or woman whose nerves must not be disturbed by the -spectacle of the misery of less fortunate beings: who finds life good, -and instinctively resents any proposals to tamper with its -foundations. These people are no more open to blame, as a rule, than -the prophet is entitled to praise for his ardour. We do not choose our -temperament, whatever else we choose. But one does not appeal to these -comfortable people. They would have refined and pleasant things about -them always, and they shrink from the vaults where, they dimly know, -ugly and sordid and writhing things are crowded together: lest their -glance fall on some yellow and distorted face whose hollow cheeks, or -eyes bloodshot with pain or brutality, would disturb the even pleasure -of their lives. So be it. Let it be written in stark letters on their -marble stones, when the last peach has dropped from their relaxing -fingers: My ideal was to enjoy life, and to let the devil take the -hindmost. - -Do not let me be misunderstood. The enjoyment of life is the supreme -ideal advocated in this book. I loathe asceticism, either Christian or -Stoic. But I write for the second type of man or woman: the people who -are strong and healthy enough to enjoy every pleasure that life -affords, yet keep some thought for the unhappiness of others: who -think it a normal part even of a pleasant and refined life, especially -a leisured life, to spare some hours for seeking how the world may be -improved for less fortunate folk: who, precisely because they love the -sunlight, ask if it cannot be devised that all men and women and -children shall have a larger share of it. Their chief difficulty is -that, unhappily, the new prophets are as discordant as the old. A few -centuries ago, when you crossed London Bridge, or the Pont Neuf at -Paris, or the Ponte Vecchio at Florence, a score of rival quacks or -charlatans (in the literal sense) cried in your ears the virtues of -their conflicting remedies. To-day just so many conflicting social -physicians cry their wares in the streets. They oppose each other -almost as bitterly as they oppose the older traditions. How shall a -busy man or woman decide among them? What fixed and unalterable -principle, in this world of dissolving creeds, can you adopt for the -testing of their truth or untruth? - -A very grave and sincere difficulty. Therefore, again, I have chosen -to attack what seem to me to be shams: which I would define as -untruths that the millions venerate as truths. The work of reform will -proceed very slowly and very precariously until these are resolutely -discredited and dethroned. In each case, it is true, it will be found -that the dethronement of an error enthrones a truth; but I insist that -we will pay no grave and practical attention to constructive schemes -until we fully realise the blunders and brutalities of our present -civilisation. The discord of our social prophets does not excuse us -from perceiving these. - -As to fixed and unalterable principles, it seems to me that two, at -least, are not disturbed by the ground-quakes of our time. Perhaps -they stand with more conspicuous firmness when so many other -"eternal verities" have fallen. The first is the principle of -truthfulness or sincerity. Of this it need be said only that, if there -are any parts of our human tradition which the larger mind of our age -discovers to be untrue, they ought to be rejected at once; and the -more closely they are woven into our social fabric, the more speedily -and more apprehensively they ought to be torn out. The second and -greater principle is the aim of arresting suffering and diffusing -happiness as far as possible. I will consider this presently, and -merely state here that these chapters have been written solely in the -name and under the inspiration of that ideal. And if my words are at -times violent, the violence is due solely to a great eagerness for the -speedier coming of a brighter and more intelligent age and to a -sincere abhorrence of cant and shams and all that lengthens this grey -twilight of civilisation. - - J. M. - - -CONTENTS. - -I. The Philosophy of Revolt - -II. The Military Sham - -III. The Follies of Sham Patriotism - -IV. Political Shams - -V. The Distribution of Wealth - -VI. Idols of the Home - -VII. The Future of Woman - -VIII. Shams of the School - -IX. The Education of the Adult - -X. The Clerical Sham - - - THE TYRANNY OF SHAMS - - CHAPTER I. - THE PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLT - -[This chapter is, with a few alterations, reproduced from _The -English Review_, October 1914.] - -ALTHOUGH this work does not embody any system of speculation about -the universe, any creed or 'ism or large and abstruse set of -principles, it must begin with a careful study of the phenomenon of -revolt. Never before was there such an age of general and feverish -restlessness; never was there such quaking of the deepest foundations -of old institutions, such tottering of thrones and altars. From every -intellectual centre the disturbing waves radiate. Round London, -Berlin, and New York the rumbling is habitual. Already they perceive -it in Tokyo and Peking and Constantinople. Tomorrow it will break on -the ear in Teheran and Lhasa. The same questions are asked all over -the earth. I have discussed them with millionaires at the Ritz and -with great ladies at Claridge's: with students in their universities -and miners in their cottages: with learned professors in Rome or New -York, and with notorious anarchists in obscure corners of Paris: with -working girls in Melbourne, with Maoris in Wellington, with Chinese -and Hindus and alert, full-blooded Africans. I have been invited to -discuss them with a Polynesian princess and to lecture on them in -Fiji, and I have had letters on them from Japanese settlers in British -Columbia and negro tailors in British Guiana. The same questions -everywhere: religious doctrines and political forms, education and -industry, marriage and woman--almost every ideal and institution we -have inherited. And the persistent note that resounds from continent -to continent is the note of rebellion. - -Very different feelings are inspired by this characteristic fact of -modern life. To some it seems that this melting of the rigid framework -of traditions is a welcome sign of spring and growth: that a long -winter, which had slowed the blood of the earth and retarded the -development of civilisation, is over at last, and little, shapeless, -promising shoots of new ideals are rising from the loosened soil. To -others it seems as if the binding fabric of our civilisation were -weakened and we were in danger of returning to barbarism. Surely those -old traditions did hold together the structure of our civilisation? -And surely it is impossible to replace in a few generations the links -of a planet-wide human society? The shades of dead Memphis and Babylon -and Nineveh, of Athens and Rome and Bagdad, of Venice and Genoa and -Florence, pass before their anxious eyes. In each case, they remind -us, this same moral, social, and intellectual restlessness preceded -death. - -The inevitable specialism of our age adds to the confusion. Life is a -connected whole, yet neither research nor reform can now be other than -sectional. We devote ourselves to a candid study of some particular -reform, and we find it a thoroughly reasonable proposal, a deduction -from principles that we are bound to admit. But we have not had -leisure to discover the indisputable principles of other reforms; and, -when we hear the demand of change and progress rising on one side -after another--in the Church, the State, the Home, the School, and so -on--we remark sententiously that rebellion is becoming a fashion, that -our generation is getting feverish or neurotic, that we must insist on -authority somewhere. We repeat plausible phrases about the decay of -respect and the wisdom of the race. We fasten on symptoms of -disorder--without inquiring very closely whether the disorder is new -or has been recently aggravated--and we conclude that conservatism is -a social duty: that, at all events, we will admit reform only by the -inch. We fancy ourselves the guardians of the _palladium_. - -Quite apart from purely selfish motives, some of the closest observers -of our age do differ radically in diagnosis and prescription. The same -movements are symptoms of health to one man, symptoms of disease to -another. Take the enlargement of divorce, the decay of clerical -authority, the industrial revolt, or the rebellion of women. There -seems to be no common ground left on which the observers may meet with -any hope of agreement. The old religious and political standards will -now hopelessly divide any roomful of educated men and women. You -propose, perhaps, to fall back on moral standards--the ground on which -"all reasonable people" unite--and someone quotes against you half -a dozen of the most brilliant writers of Europe and America. Hopes and -lamentations, inspired by precisely the same facts of life, mingle -confusedly in our literature, and men and women of large heart and -little leisure seem to be condemned to a sterile perplexity or a -selfish absorption in business and pleasure. What, at all events, is -the meaning or purpose of life? And how is this spreading rebellion -related to it? - -First let us examine the grounds of the very distressing forecasts of -the Conservative. In the vast majority of cases that are worth -examining one will find that the pessimism has not very firm -foundations. Your dismal prophet is usually a man with an ancient -gospel which we are discarding, or a new gospel which does not attract -us. The appeal to the modern world, he realises, must be utilitarian: -he must show us that, without him, we perish. So he recklessly heaps -up before our eyes statistics of crime and consumption and lunacy and -alcohol: he makes weird and totally inaccurate statements about France -or the United States or some other country: he marshals the shades of -dead empires--which seem to have died of a wonderful complication of -modern maladies--before us with appropriate rhetoric. - -Now to this kind of conservatism, which says that we are decaying, I -reply that, on every positive test of national health, we are more -flourishing than we ever were before. Dark as the earth is, it was -never brighter than it is to-day, or more full of promise for the -morrow. The war is not inconsistent with this general statement, as I -will show later. A failure to advance in one direction does not alter -the fact that we have advanced in a hundred others; and the gross -behaviour of one nation does not destroy the gain that half a dozen -other nations were ready to behave with a new decency in warfare. As -to that "lesson of history" which is stridently read to us by men -and women whose command of history is not otherwise conspicuous, I -would remind them that the civilisation of dead empires always reached -its height just before, or at the time when, they began to decay. Does -anyone suggest that we ought not further to develop our civilisation -lest we also decay? However, I have sufficiently discussed elsewhere -this nonsense about "laws of history"; and I will show later that -these older empires decayed, not because of their high development of -intellect and fine sentiment, which leads to revolt, but from the -natural defect of those very institutions which our conservatives -defend. - -We are not decaying. England is, for every class of its citizens, an -immeasurably finer place to live in than it was a hundred years ago. I -speak on the strength of a rigorous comparison of the moral and social -life of England a century ago with that of modern England, but I -cannot give the facts here. Let it suffice to make plain that I have -no sympathy with pessimists and preachers of penance and austerity, of -any school. The world improves, and improves more rapidly than it ever -did before. What stirs one's impatience is the consciousness that we -could, and do not, move with infinitely greater speed: that we -tolerate abuses and shams which insult our intelligence and mock our -professions of humanity. - -What, then, are the grounds of the optimistic view of this widespread -revolt? Let us admit that conservatism, in the sense of an attitude of -caution, is a virtue. We would not try unknown drugs on the life of an -individual, and we ought not to apply untried recipes to the life of -forty million people. Yet it is precisely from this medical world that -we gather valuable hints of progress. By two centuries of sober and -heroic labour the physician has brought the greater part of our -maladies under control. He would tell you, in private, that he has a -hope of eventually being able to check all disease and prolong life. -The _laissez-faire_ attitude is unknown in medical science. It is -unknown in our technical and commercial worlds. We have made -stupendous progress, not by conserving, but by innovating: not asking -if a machine or a system worked well, but if we could devise a better. -In science--in all on which we pride ourselves in modern -civilisation--we have followed the progressive principle: we have -cultivated revolt. Since we began to do so, we have raised the level -of our civilisation in each generation. - -It is therefore not surprising that many are asking whether we ought -not to extend the progressive principle to our religions, moralities, -politics, economic systems, schools, domestic and civic and social -traditions. It is, in other words, quite natural that there should be -a demand for, not one reform only, but a hundred reforms, in modern -life. We are justly, wisely proud of what is distinctive and superior -in our civilisation: advance, better organisation, economy of waste, -greater efficiency. The mystery is that so many would restrict this -improvement to what they call the "lower" material departments of -life, and keep a strict guard against the reformer at the frontiers of -their spiritual or political world. The modern rebellion is a very -logical effort to apply these very successful principles to as much of -life as is susceptible of improvement. - -This effort, further, coincides with the quite dominant and -characteristic note of modern culture: evolution. We forget sometimes -that until half a century ago Europe was oppressed by an entirely -wrong view of the earth's resources. Plato put a philosophic -anathema on the earth. This material mass, he said, was a barren -thing. Order, truth, beauty, love had to come to it, in fitful gleams, -from a world beyond, over which man had no control. We know now that -Plato was wrong. Order, truth, beauty, and love have developed on the -earth--they are "sublunary" things--and man can control their -sources and enlarge their proportions. They do not properly make men -great: men make them great. They are as surely under our direction as -are applied science and commerce and the franchise. We can cultivate -them as we now cultivate pansies or sheep. It depends on _us_ if lies -and disorder and dishonour are to linger among us, or if truth and -justice and beauty are to prevail. - -Again therefore it is quite natural that we should hear a demand for a -more extensive use of these powers of ours. The ships and ploughs and -illuminants of a hundred years ago were made by the same men, or the -same generations of men, as the religions and polities and moralities -of the time. Why assume that the wisdom of the race was almost -infallible in its spiritual and more difficult creations, but capable -of enormous improvement on the material side? Conservatism, as -anything more than an attitude of caution and prudence, has not a -plausible air. - -It is well also to regard the essential or characteristic line of -human evolution. Apart from a few who are caught by a transient -attempt to glorify instinct, we agree that the development of -intelligence is one of the main sources of progress. Now this great -and general awakening of intelligence in recent decades was bound to -lead to a good deal of challenging of old traditions. That was -precisely why the grandfathers of our bishops and peers opposed it. -This higher intelligence of the race is now assisted in its decisions -by a vastly greater and more accurate knowledge of man and the -universe than our grandparents had; and the cheapening of literature -dimly conveys this knowledge to millions who were left out of account -when the traditional maps of life were drafted. The artisan discusses -economics and theology. The Tonga Islander works out mathematical -problems. I met a pure-blooded negro, with a European degree in -philosophy, who told me that he had been forced to resign his chair in -an African Mohammedan college because of his advanced ideas! Once I -discussed with a group of miners industrial questions and religion -from twelve to three in the morning, over pots of beer, in a little -inn on the west coast of New Zealand, a hundred miles from anything -like a town. - -It is quite impossible for this spreading and better informed -intelligence to bow humbly to the ideas of an earlier generation. It -is going to think for itself, at all events. The old traditions must -be revised throughout. Revision is not particularly dangerous except -to errors. And already we have discovered that our political and -religious and social oracles have been teaching a good deal of error. -We begin to suspect that many things the divine right of kings and the -eternal torment of the wicked may not be strictly accurate. We had -better reconsider all our ways of living. - -The second permanent strain of human evolution is the development of -fine sentiment. The notion that the world is becoming more -preponderantly intellectual, and that progress along our present lines -means a limitation of sentiment, is inaccurate. We are working toward -a healthy equilibrium. Sentimental people--those in whom a starving of -intellect or disuse of muscle has surcharged the nervous system with -morbid energy--will become more balanced, more intellectual. Ancient -phrases and modern shibboleths will not be able to induce in them an -instinctive warmth or agitation: they will have to pass the bar of -reason before they reach what one might call the executive department -of personality. But sentiment--deep and healthy feeling--has a -precious use in life. The development of fine sentiment is as -necessary as the cultivation of reason to the advance of man and of -civilisation. We find this illustrated in all the older civilisations -when they reach their highest point. We are picking up this strain of -development to-day, and, since civilisation is now too widely diffused -ever to perish again, we may assume that it will continue. Now this -finer sentiment of our time demands the revision of our traditions and -institutions no less imperiously than our higher intelligence does. We -cannot leave behind the callousness and brutality of the Middle Ages -and at the same time retain medieval practices. Intellectually and -emotionally we are improving, and we must expect that, as our finer -powers grow, there will be an increasing demand for revision and -reconstruction. As Mr. Watson finely says: - - "Guests of the ages, at tomorrow's door - Why shrink we? The long track behind us lies, - The lamps gleam and the music throbs before, - Bidding us enter; and I count him wise - Who loves so well man's noble memories - He needs must love man's nobler hopes yet more." - -This is, I think, a correct analysis of the innovating spirit of -modern times. These general considerations to which it is due are -quite beyond discussion. One feels that one is almost perpetrating -platitudes in describing them. In fact, we would to-day find only a -negligible number of people who oppose progress and innovation -altogether. They usually oppose it in one or two departments of life, -and quite warmly applaud it in others. A Socialist-Ritualist -clergyman, for instance, fiercely demands advance in the economic -field, yet fences his own department of life with the most rigorous -warnings against innovating trespassers. A Rationalist-Individualist -feels that the Church is the most obvious and urgent field for -innovation, and at the same time guards his economic world against it -with a flaming sword. A Suffragist pours fiery scorn on our obstinate -conservatism in regard to the franchise, and then discovers an even -more obstinate and entirely sacred conservatism when other women claim -something more than political emancipation. It is this very general -sectarianism which compels us to review the philosophy of revolt. -These principles apply to the whole of life. All our institutions must -be critically examined. The searchlight will not injure them if they -are sound. - -But how comes this sweetly reasonable philosophy to be converted into -that passion for reform, that mordant and exasperating attack on -institutions, which gives a special complexion to the literature of -our time? For precisely the same reason as the invisible electric -current leaps into incandescence when it passes through the sluggish -particles of the filament of carbon or tungsten: resistance. The old -faith is growing dim in our minds, and we have a suspicion that the -thousands of men and women who, each night, terminate a life of pain -or struggle or burden, wilt never see the sun rise again, on this or -any other planet. We know that every decade in which we put off, with -worn and hollow phrases, the abandonment of old errors, sees another -generation pass away with just the same scars and traces of pain as -those which scored the hearts of the dead two, and four, and six -thousand years ago. We are vividly conscious that, quite apart from -the myriads whose lives were embittered by poverty, or war, or a -galling marriage-yoke, or the tyranny of some old tradition, there are -further and vaster myriads who, whatever comfort they knew, might have -been far happier, and now the sun has gone down on them for ever. -There is real and very serious ground for impatience. The acreage of -squalor and misery and grossness is still appalling, and on every land -lies the crushing burden of militarism; and this fearful visitation of -war reminds us of the incalculable periodic cost of our folly. The -soil of the planet is wet with blood and tears, and a great part of -this inhuman rain might be arrested. Much has been done: it is just -that which stings. You cannot look back on the darkness from which the -race has issued without perceiving that man has the power to transform -the face of the earth: without entertaining a reasoned and coldly -intellectual conviction that a day will yet dawn on this planet when -laughter, as of children on May morning, will ring from pole to pole, -and life, for all its work, will be a holiday. And when this reasoned -and just belief encounters the sullen or selfish indifference of men -and women to their creative power, their insensitiveness to the evils -that they or their fellows endure, it glows and spits fire. - -It is quite easy to apologise for strong language: much easier than to -justify the general lack of it. And this impatience cannot be rebuked -by reminding us that the remedy of some of our ills is very obscure; -because the majority of people are indifferent to the very idea of -reform. They shoulder burdens which they might at any moment lay aside -for ever. Some of the greatest reforms that are pressed on us are not -obscured by any serious controversy. Yet in every civilised nation the -mass of the people are inert and indifferent. Some even make a -pretence of justifying their inertness. Why, they ask, should we stir -at all? Is there such a thing as a duty to improve the earth? What is -the meaning or purpose of life? Or has it a purpose? - -One generally finds that this kind of reasoning is merely a piece of -controversial athletics or a thin excuse for idleness. People tell you -that the conflict of science and religion--it would be better to say, -the conflict of modern culture and ancient traditions--has robbed life -of its plain significance. The men who, like Tolstoi, seriously urge -this point fail to appreciate the modern outlook on life. Certainly -modern culture--science, history, philosophy, and art--finds no -purpose in life: that is to say, no purpose eternally fixed and to be -discovered by man. A great chemist said a few years ago that he could -imagine "a series of lucky accidents"--the chance blowing by the wind -of certain chemicals into pools on the primitive earth--accounting for -the first appearance of life; and one might not unjustly sum up the -influences which have lifted those early germs to the level of -conscious beings as a similar series of lucky accidents. - -But it is sheer affectation to say that this demoralises us. If there -is no purpose impressed on the universe, or prefixed to the -development of humanity, it follows only that humanity may choose its -own purpose and set up its own goal; and the most elementary sense of -order will teach us that this choice must be social, not merely -individual. In whatever measure ill-controlled individuals may yield -to personal impulses or attractions, the aim of the race must be a -collective aim. I do not mean an austere demand of self-sacrifice from -the individual, but an adjustment--as genial and generous as -possible--of individual variations for common good. Otherwise life -becomes discordant and futile, and the pain and waste react on each -individual. So we raise again, in the twentieth century, the old -question of "the greatest good," which men discussed in the Stoa -Poikile and the suburban groves of Athens, in the cool _atria_ of -patrician mansions on the Palatine and the Pincian, in the Museum at -Alexandria, and the schools which Omar Khayyám frequented, in the -straw-strewn schools of the Middle Ages and the opulent chambers of -Cosmo de' Medici. - -We answer, as men did in all those earlier debates, according to our -temperament. One says culture, another character, another happiness, -another pleasure, another efficiency. This discussion is often a mere -exercise of wit, and very often we use a quite arbitrary standard in -fixing what is "best," or the greatest good. Probably the modern -mind will put to itself the plain question: "What is the best -purpose for the race, in its own interest, to adopt?" As we are not -now clear that there are any other interests to be consulted, this is -the obvious form of the question. And when we do put it in this form, -the old conflict begins to disappear. We see that a comprehensive -ideal, embracing all the classical answers, commends itself. We want -more--we want as much as possible--culture, character, happiness, -pleasure, and efficiency. We want a quicker and fuller development of -man's highest and richest resources. But, if you look closely into -it, there is one ultimate and commanding element in this broad ideal. -It is happiness. Culture is a necessity of the race and luxury of the -few. Character is supremely important, but you have now to prove to -men that it is important. We do not bow any longer to arbitrary -commands and categorical imperatives and Stoic laws. We have to be -convinced that the cultivation of a high type of character will lessen -suffering and brighten the earth. Pleasure, again, is, as Epicurus -insisted, only a part of a large ideal of happiness. There is, in -fact, no ground on which you can appeal to the mass of men to-day in -favour of cultivation or idealism except this ground that it makes for -greater happiness: and on that ground you may safely appeal to the -whole race. - -Sometimes, when you ascend the slopes of a range of hills,--the idea -occurred to me during a walk from Chamonix to Montanvert,--the mists -close round you, and the guiding peaks and contours are lost. Then, -perhaps, some point breaks through the clouds, and you stride on -confidently. This must apply to the most sceptical or nebulous mind of -our generation. The old dream of a co-operative effort to improve -life, to bring happiness to as many minds of mortals as we can reach, -shines above all the mists of the day. Through the ruins of creeds and -philosophies, which have for ages disdained it, we are retracing our -steps toward that height--just as the Athenians did two thousand years -ago. It rests on no metaphysic, no sacred legend, no disputable -tradition--nothing that scepticism can corrode or advancing knowledge -undermine. Its foundations are the fundamental and unchanging impulses -of our nature. Its features are as clear and attractive to the child as -to the philosopher. Philosophers will, of course, declare it -superficial; but we may remind them that all their supposed deeper -probing of reality, from Pythagoras to Bergson, has ended in a -confusion of contradictory guesses. Churchmen will declare with horror -that it is "materialistic"; and we may remind _them_ that for -fifteen centuries they have taught Europe to place its highest good in -happiness. If the happiness they promised is getting doubtful, we make -sure of what we can. In truth, however, no nobler aim ever inspired -action, and none is so fitted to appeal to modern man. It is, in fact, -the mainspring of nearly all the progressive activity of our time. The -more doubtful all else becomes, the more determined men and women are -to be happy in this world. Thrones and creeds and institutions, even -moral codes, are brought to judgment to-day before that ideal. It is -more profitable to judge the living than the dead. - -This ideal is the chief inspiration of the rebellious temper of our -age. The revolt which burns in so much of the abler literature of our -time is an unselfish revolt, or non-selfish revolt: it is an outcome -of that larger spirit which conceives the self to be a part of the -general social organism, and it is therefore neither egoistic nor -altruistic. It finds a sanction in the new intelligence, and an -inspiration in the finer sentiments, of our generation, but the glow -which chiefly illumines it is the glow of the great vision of a -happier earth. It speaks of the claims of truth and justice, and -assails untruth and injustice, for these are elemental principles of -social life; but it appeals more confidently to the warmer sympathy -which is linking the scattered children of the race, and it urges all -to co-operate in the restriction of suffering and the creation of -happiness. The advance guard of the race, the men and women in whom -mental alertness is associated with fine feeling, cry that they have -reached Pisgah's slope; and in increasing numbers men and women are -pressing on to see if it be really the Promised Land. That is the -spirit of the reform-movement of our times. Popes anathematise our -age, and the clergy of all sects bemoan its "materialism," yet it -is exulting in a wider and higher idealism than any that ever yet -stirred the heart of man. For we now know from what dark and brutal -origins we came, and we feel that, if we advance only as we are -advancing, we may reach any height that any prophet ever yet saw in -his visions. - -It is very difficult to avoid what seem to be rhetorical phrases in -describing this age of ours: the age which some profess to find prosy -and materialistic in comparison with the earlier age when a handful of -plethoric landowners ruled England, and little children worked in -filthy rooms for twelve hours a day, and cut-throats, in most charming -costumes, slew each other in the fields of London. I have not the -least desire to use rhetoric; I do but express my feeling, and what I -take to be the feeling of "advanced" people generally, as it comes -to me. But in this poetry there is the solidity of scientific prose. -Some time ago I sailed slowly toward Teneriffe from the south. Eighty -miles away, on a fine morning, the summit of the Peak showed its -delicate contour in the clouds, hardly distinguishable from them. We -thought it an illusion, a simulating cloud, because far below the -summit the blue sky seemed to stretch from horizon to horizon. The -Peak floated in the air. But, as we drew nearer, the blue band below -it grew thinner, and at last it disclosed the massive bulk of the -supporting mountain. - -Speaking as a sober student of history and science, I say that this -dream of a brighter and happier earth rests on no less solid a -foundation. We see primitive man, blindly, and with infinite slowness, -move towards civilisation: we see civilisation slowly, with many a -tragic interruption, advance toward the modern age: and now we see the -pace quicken enormously, and we find a new consciousness of power and -a deliberate aim at higher things bear the race onward. The -reformer's belief in the future is a scientific deduction from the -past. - -The failure of the mass of people to co-operate in the realisation of -this ideal is due, not to indolence or stupidity, but to the obsessing -influence of the old traditions. They choke the fires of the mind: -they make us insensible to the real enormity of a great deal of our -social arrangements. Hence it is that the reformer's appeal is cast -so frequently in a negative or aggressive form. The most powerful -thing in our world is, not truth, but untruth; and the most important -thing in the world is to assail it. "Great is truth, and it will -prevail," said an ancient writer. But the civilisation which gave -birth to that sentiment died, and all its promising young truths -perished with it, and Europe fell under the rule of lies for more than -a thousand years. Untruth is millennia older than truth. Its roots run -deep into the flesh of the heart, while the rootlets of truth are -struggling for a frail clasp in the intellect. Great is untruth, and -it will prevail--unless it is attacked unceasingly. No untruth ever -died a natural death. Being the sacred truth of yesterday, it is -usually entrenched in powerful corporations, embodied in the law and -life of nations, enshrined in the tenacious affections of the -millions. At one time you incurred sentence of death if you challenged -it: now you incur slander, misrepresentation, and mockery. The race -has been made docile to it by a kind of negative Eugenic--perhaps we -ought to say Cacogenic--selection. Yet nearly everything which the -majority venerate as truth to-day began its career as heresy and will -end it as lie. - -So the first task of the well-wisher of mankind is to distinguish -truth from untruth in our traditions. The story of man is a long story -of the tyranny of consecrated shams, with occasional intervals of -rebellion and advance to a higher stage. Rebellion is the salt of the -earth. There comes a time in the history of every civilisation when -the mind of a few rises high enough to survey critically that stream -of traditions in which the majority lazily float. Then comes the -inevitable revolt; hence the close kinship which we feel across the -ages with "the Preacher," with Socrates, with Omar Khayyám, with -Erasmus, with Molière. We are at the same stage of evolution, with -the difference that we moderns have an immense mass of knowledge of -history and prehistory to aid us in testing the value of our -traditions. Already we have discarded scores of old dogmas: in -religion, politics, education, law, and every department of our common -life. It would be folly to attempt to fence off any province of our -life from this critical scrutiny. And since we obstinately retain many -traditions which a very high proportion of properly educated people -regard as unsound and mischievous, since these traditions are the -chief obstacle to the advance of the race, one of the most pressing -needs of our time is, surely, a stern campaign for the abolition of -this tyranny of shams. - - - CHAPTER II. - THE MILITARY SHAM - -IN the original conception of this work militarism was selected as -the first sham to be assailed because it is at once the most costly -and the least excusable. The way to remove many of the blots on our -civilisation is by no means plain. A dozen conflicting theories -confront you, and each has a sufficiently large body of adherents to -entitle it to consideration. But there are others in regard to which a -large and practical measure of agreement has been reached. Here we do -not need so much the subtle dissection of arguments and proposals as -the kindling of that ardent and imperious sentiment which spurs a man -or a race to action. The evil is recognised: the way to remedy it is -sufficiently clear. What we need is, in the mass of the people, that -fiery resentment of a hated tyranny which will shake the lie from its -throne. - -The first, the gravest, the most flagrant and most vivid in our minds -at the moment of these obvious shams is war, with the military system -which it involves. Here there is no sacred legend of a divine origin -to confuse the minds of the ignorant. There are legends of divine -approval, it is true, but the clergy do not press them and they have -little influence. War is a practice or institution which we clearly -trace to the wild impulses and imperfect social forms of early man: -even to the sheer passion of the beast that was still strong in him. -No sophistry can obscure this bestial origin. We men and women of the -twentieth century cling to one feature, at least, of an age on which -we look back with high disdain: an age with which we would bitterly -resent any comparison in point of intelligence and feeling. We may try -to gild it with glittering phrases about a nation's honour, but we -know, all the while, that the honour of a nation no more demands that -it shall dye its hands in the blood of a sister-nation than the honour -of an individual requires so barbaric a consolation. - -We maintain this sham in an age when mechanical progress has made such -strides that it has turned the industry of war into our chief and most -oppressive occupation. We cannot, with all our sacrifices, find the -means to carry out most urgent reforms in our social life; we cannot -put flesh on the bones and light in the eyes of poor children, or ease -the lives of worn workers and helpless widows; because we need these, -and even greater resources, to sharpen the sabre for our neighbour's -throat and enlarge the calibre of the tube that will scatter a hail of -death. We have for years stood in such attitude confronting each -other, we civilised nations, that on any day of any year the bugle -might peal, and the soil and seas of Europe be reddened with blood, -and the pain which knows no remedy shoot through millions of homes; -and now the tragedy has opened, grimmer than the dourest prophet had -ever pictured it. Why have we done this? Ultimately, because man, the -primeval savage, knowing nothing of our systems of justice, laid it -down that the knife or the club was the guardian of a man's honour -or property: proximately, because we of this highly cultivated age -enthrone still one of the most ghastly shams which barbarism succeeded -in enforcing on civilisation. - -I have described it as a characteristic of our age that we are rising -above the stream of traditions which flows from civilisation to -civilisation, and are discovering that some of its sources are -tainted. Now in the case of warfare this scrutiny of the origin and -course of our traditions is comparatively easy. What we have -discovered is so well known, and so little disputed, that it need -hardly be related. It may be useful to state, at least, that very -early man was probably not a combative and bloodthirsty savage. He -lives to-day in such lowly peoples as the Veddahs and the Yahgans, and -they are generally peaceful and averse from brawling. In this -primitive man, however, there slumbered all the impulsive passion of -earlier ancestors, and it was inevitable that a cultural rise should -awaken it. When men became organised in tribes, when they became -hunters and tillers of the soil, when they increased and wandered far -afield, quarrels arose over women and hunting grounds and other -necessaries, and the institution of warfare was established. Within -the tribe there was already some kind of court, as a rule, before -which a man could bring his neighbour for wrong-doing. For the quarrel -between tribe and tribe there was no judge: the verdict lay with the -heavier weapon and the stouter arm. Hence, the higher the intelligence -of the tribe, the more deadly and widespread became the carnage. -Ferocity became a useful social quality--a virtue, indeed, the supreme -virtue, or _virtus_ (manliness)--and the primitive genius was expended -in making more cruel and lacerating the barbs of the arrow and the -spear. The administration of justice advanced, and a time came when -private vengeance, and even family feuds, were strictly forbidden and -regarded as crimes. But, while ten men might not go to war against ten -men, ten thousand would march out, with the sonorous blessing of their -priests, to the more barbaric butchery of war against ten thousand. -The mind had to grow larger, the heart more human, before the reign of -justice would be acknowledged in the relations of masses of men to -each other as well as in the relations of individuals. - -With the dawn of civilisation a terrible paradox occurred. Warfare was -not abolished, but made more destructive. Again we find this a natural -and intelligible development. Each early civilisation found itself -surrounded by barbaric tribes, with which no compact of justice could -be established or trusted. The great Stoic humanitarians of Rome, who -preached the brotherhood of men and denounced violence, dared not, in -the interest of civilisation, plead disarmament. There were, of -course, moral sophisms in support of this plain need. The profit of -aggression, the prestige of conquering, were adorned with phrases akin -to our "white man's burden." Yet it is true that until modern -times warfare could not have been abolished without grave danger to -civilisation. The crime of warfare became a crime only in these later -centuries. Now that fully three-fourths of the race are gathered into -civilised states, a compact of justice, an international tribunal with -an international executive, _is_ possible; and we are guilty, either -of a base hypocrisy or a ghastly insensibility to our gravest -interests, in refusing to set up that compulsory international -tribunal. - -No writer will be expected to discuss patiently to-day the pitiful -sophistry with which, until yesterday, a few defended the retention of -the military institution. Germany resounded with, and England and -France and the United States echoed here and there, the pompous and -hollow claims of its Treitschkes and Moltkes. War was a splendid moral -discipline: an institution appointed by Providence for purging the -race of sloth and materialism, for restoring chivalry and brightening -the shield of honour and rebuking selfishness. War has grimly belied -its apologists and we need notice them no longer. It has betrayed one -of the greatest nations of modern times into horrors and outrages -which are a supreme and eternal mockery of their moral claims for it. - -Others more justly claimed that war develops the virility, the -endurance, the power of men. The lesson of history, they said, is on -the side of war: the great empires of the world became great by their -heroism and sacrifices on the field of battle. Here we must -distinguish carefully. It is obviously true that these empires became -big, powerful, and wealthy by war; and if any nation candidly -confesses that it relies on war to increase its territory, its power, -and its wealth, its argument is unanswerable. But there is now no -nation in the world that professes to maintain an army and a navy for -the purpose of aggression and expansion. Even Germany, which -undoubtedly did construct its massive armament for that purpose, had -not the audacity to admit it. Defence is the justifying title and, in -so far as it is sincere, it is a just title. If, as long as the -military system lasts, an army and a navy of a certain strength are -required, in the judgment of appointed experts, for the defence of a -country and its institutions, we pay our share willingly for the -maintenance of such an army and navy, and we respect our soldiers and -sailors. I do not for one moment advocate the disarmament of one -nation living amidst armed neighbours; and a partial disarmament, or -an insufficient armament, is the surest provocation of war. My point -is that, since the world has reached such a pitch of moral development -that each nation now professes to arm only against the possible -aggression of a neighbour, the time has come for them to agree upon -the infinitely less costly and more reliable way of settling their -possible quarrels as individuals do. Only one nation, Germany, seems -to be genuinely opposed to this, not so much from native malice of -character as from very serious domestic reasons for aggression: and a -perfect opportunity now arises for effectively impressing on Germany -the fact that she has come too late into the family of Great Powers -for filibustering. - -As to the development of physique and endurance and discipline, it is -too obvious that this could be attained by athletic contests which are -at present left to voluntary interest or to the unattractive -manœuvres of professional exploiters. For years I have followed -professional football with keen pleasure, and I was interested when, -at the outbreak of war, men cried that these footballers were the most -superb material for our recruiting agents. It was perfectly true. Any -State which is sincerely eager to develop the physique and endurance -of its citizens can do it by the use of devices which will provide -most enjoyable spectacles and national or international festivals -instead of periodic orgies of blood and tears. The defenders of war -must be hard pressed for argument when they plead this necessity. -There is, moreover, one supreme difference between war and athletics -as instruments of training. War destroys what it creates: athletics -keeps its men among our citizens and breeders. - -The truth is that the whole historical argument for war, which has had -an incalculable influence in the education of Germany, is a miserable -fallacy. The real lesson of history is that militarism has been a -malignant cancer, transmitted from one empire to another, and, by -destroying them, it has hundreds of times suspended the advance of -civilisation. It is in a sense a fallacy to claim that any nation -became great by war. The tribe which wins ascendancy over its -neighbours does so because it is already more powerful, more numerous, -or more fortunately situated. Then comes the period of expansion, -when, as we admit, greater power and wealth and territory are -undoubtedly won by the sword. This is the seductive phase of history, -leading astray men like Ruskin as well as men like Mommsen and -Niebuhr. Let us admit all its glories. Moral and humanitarian excesses -are just as mischievous as immoral excesses. As a result of this -successful war and expansion, the older empires were enabled to foster -art, to protect their growing culture, to civilise vast stretches of -the earth that might otherwise have lain uncivilised for ages. - -Most assuredly war has, in this sense, been a most valuable influence -in spreading civilisation over the earth. What modern historians -forget is that the conditions have totally changed. Your empire is no -longer surrounded by myriads of barbarians whom you must conquer -before you can civilise. Germany has been forced to colour its -aggression by the stupid pretence that it had a higher _Kultur_ than -its neighbours, and that, in endeavouring to impose it on them, it was -carrying out the "law of history." It is a pity that science and -history ever adopted the word "law." What they mean, of course, is -only a summary of the way in which things uniformly occurred in -certain conditions. Now that the conditions are entirely changed, the -laws have no application. One might suggest that we still need armies -to conquer and civilise the outstanding barbaric peoples. We do not. -We need an international armed force to check their aggressions, but -there are other and better methods of civilising them. In any case, -this plea has no relation to the vast armies and navies and the bloody -wars we actually endure. - -But it is the next and final phase of militarism which the historical -apologists for war have so grossly overlooked: the phase when the best -stocks of the old race are extinguished on the battlefield or -enervated by the luxurious idleness which was bought by the spoils of -war. Is it not proverbial how the great families which had led the -invincible legions of Rome dwindled in five centuries into a sickly -cluster of parasites or wholly disappeared? Is it not notorious that -it was, in the first century of the present era, the healthier -provincial stocks which saved Rome from destruction, or postponed its -destruction? And do we not find, as time goes on, men from more and -more distant provinces, in the end men from the barbaric fringes of -the Empire, coming to lead its legions and support its falling eagles? -All through Roman history war presents itself to the mind of the -candid historian as a vampire living on the best blood of the people. -Only a continuous supply of fresh blood and stout frames from the -subject peoples keeps up the illusion of an "eternal Rome." It is -only the shell that lasts. The people of Rome itself and of the -neighbouring plains, from which the old legionaries had come, were -soon exhausted. Italy in turn was exhausted and made desolate. Then -Gaul and Spain and Africa, and Thrace and Dacia and the more distant -provinces, were sucked bloodless and resourceless; and the great shell -of an empire fell with a crash under the blows of Goth and Vandal. It -is a clerical myth that Roman strength was sapped by vice. Its blood -was drunk by war. - -These things Niebuhr and Mommsen forgot when they proposed to Germany -the splendid example of Rome; and history will have its revenge on its -great interpreters by recording the close in tragedy of this new -imperialism which they inspired. Other historians boldly quoted -Greece--Alexander of Macedon--and the fallacy is even more piteous. -Athens assuredly did not become great by war. Its most brilliant -period opens after a crushing and devastating reverse, and its -achievements were entirely due to its statesmen, its artists, and its -thinkers. But from the moment when the shadow of the Macedonian empire -fell on it, a blight came swiftly over its culture. Its glory departed -for ever when it became part of a great military power. Greece, as a -whole, was impoverished and ruined by war. Sparta itself, one of the -most strenuous military powers that ever lived, is a classical proof -that war invigorates only to destroy. - -To whatever nation we turn, we learn the same lesson of history. Egypt -survived the strain, owing to the constant infusion of foreign blood, -for eight thousand years, but sank at last so exhausted that it seems -almost beyond the hope of reanimation. Assyria and Babylonia were -prepared for destruction by the same steady drain of their healthiest -blood. The Hittites, the Lydians, the Phœnicians, the Medes, the -Persians followed the same course. From the first founding of -civilisation in the valley of the Nile, ten thousand years ago, war -has brooded over its cities and cornfields, and has time after time -blighted its achievements and its hopes. It is as though some god were -jealous of the advance of man, and maintained on the earth this -corroding pest to eat into the life of each successive empire, and, by -destroying it, to interrupt the progress of the race. - -In the history of Europe since the fall of Rome we witness the same -human tragedy. I do not overlook the other evil influences, such as -fiscal disorder and industrial parasitism, which have contributed to -the fall of empires, but the share of war in these tragedies was -incalculable. The fate of early England, battling against invaders and -rent by internal quarrels for centuries, is typical. The greater -England of modern times, or the _real_ greatness of modern England, -was built in periods of comparative peace by merchants and -manufacturers and scholars. Over the whole of Europe the vampire still -brooded, fastening on each young nation that advanced beyond its -fellows. The medieval republics of Italy were wrecked by war. Holland -and Portugal, once the most promising powers of Europe, were exhausted -by it. Not vice, not enervation, not a dwindling birth-rate,--which -are rather consequences than causes,--but the incessant exhaustion of -their resources on the seas and the battlefield condemned them to -decay. Italy fell back into the state of impotence which gave Austria -and the Papacy their ignoble opportunity. Once more the advance of -civilisation was checked by the jealous god of war. - -It is, of course, true that warfare produced fine types of men; but -for every Bayard there were ten thousand brutal soldiers, whose march -across Europe left a broad track of rape and ruin. It is true that the -naval or military successes of Venice and Genoa and Florence enabled -them to raise marble palaces and to foster the art of painters and the -research of scholars; but it is equally true that prosperity based on -such a foundation was generally doomed. The example of medieval Rome -shows that a military basis was not essential. The peoples from whom -the tribute had been wrung awaited their hour--the hour when the -vampire had sucked the great frame weak and bloodless--and then, by -the same law of might, they smote the oppressor. The historian who -reads the whole chronicle of man is saddened even in contemplating a -nation's prosperity. Amidst the cries of joy and triumph and love he -seems to hear the cynical laughter of the war-god. - -I need not follow the devastation of war through the later history of -Europe. The Thirty Years War laid Germany desolate, and postponed its -cultural development for more than a century. Spain, Portugal, and -Holland, which had won empire by the sword, lost it to the sword. The -Ottoman Empire sank into weakness and shame. All this was due, in the -first place, to what Count von Moltke calls "the institution of -God": the institution without which "the world would fall into -decay and lose itself in materialism." Even while he spoke Germany -was prospering by peace as few nations had ever prospered before. -Could there possibly be a more perverse reading of the lesson of -history? Could there be a greater mockery conceived than to imagine -God smiling on this blood-reeking Europe, or to call this a spiritual -triumph over materialism? Is any man, with the present desolation of -Europe before him, tempted to place the soldier above the artist, the -scientist, or the engineer as an instrument of progress? Let us grant -militarism all that it has really achieved. It remains, in the mind of -the historian, the greatest curse that mankind has endured since the -primitive humans were first gathered into tribes and disputed each -other's "spheres of influence." - -Blind to this ghastly tragedy of history, we have maintained and -cherished militarism until it has brought on us in turn the greatest -catastrophe that a single year ever embraced. Probably our -grandchildren, probably many a child that gazes now with wide eyes on -our troops and banners, will look back on our civilisation with -amazement. They may smile at a drill-sergeant like Count von Moltke -telling illiterate rustics of the glorious moral qualities which war -develops in--the men who traversed Belgium! But we civilians will -honestly puzzle them. We had the history of the world unfolded before -us, and we saw this institution plainly emerging from barbarism and -leaving its bloody and defacing splashes on every page of the -chronicle. We traced the evolution of justice, and we saw that, as it -was a mighty gain to men when tribunals were set up to adjudicate on -the quarrels of individuals or clans, it would be a far mightier gain -to erect a tribunal for settling the quarrels of nations. Yet we took -this stupid burden from the shoulders of our fathers, and we made it -incalculably heavier for ourselves and our children. - -I need not set out the weight of the burden in figures. When I first -wrote this page I dilated on the seventy million sterling per year -which we English were compelled to spend on defence: I imagined it -expended on social betterment and human help--on a magnificent scheme -of education, for children and adults, and so on. Then I observed--two -years ago--with a shudder that at any moment a war might double our -National Debt and compel us to find a further £40,000,000 a year to -pay for our militarism. And here, within less than twelve months, we -have incurred this monstrous burden, yet we linger still on the very -fringe of the mighty battlefield we have to traverse. Think what the -future may be if we retain militarism. In the past one hundred years, -or a little more, war has cost Europe about £4,000,000,000. In one -year a modern war has cost Europe more than that sum, and may cost it -double. Add to this, if you can calculate it, the value of the -millions of the more robust workers who die on the field: the -appalling loss to productive industry: the portentous devastation of -property. I suppose that, soberly, the total cost of this war will be -something between ten and twenty thousand million sterling. What will -be the cost of the next war, which may come within ten years? And what -might we have done in Europe with ten thousand million sterling? - -I am not, it will be observed, relying on disputed speculations like -those of Mr. Norman Angell. I do not accept his characteristic theory; -but it need not now be discussed, as our experience rather suggests -that a modern war will prove so exhausting, economically, that there -will be no question of substantial indemnity for the victor. But we -must in any case add to this cost of war, for victor and vanquished -alike, that incalculable damage which is expressed in ruined homes, -ruined fortunes, and the pain of loss. This also is too vividly -present in our minds to need comment. These sacrifices have been borne -heroically. Those of us who have lost nothing can most sincerely -salute both the men who exposed their lives in a just cause and the -women who endured as women do. The soldier's trade is an honourable -trade while the need for it lasts, and at such a time it calls for -respect and gratitude. But how stupid and brutal in the last degree is -the system that imposes these sacrifices, when we reflect that the -honour or the rights of any nation could have been vindicated without -the darkening of a single home or the loss of a single citizen. - -There, of course, we have the centre of gravity of the whole -discussion. _If_ we can abolish and dispense with the military system, -our retention of it in the twentieth century is the most appalling -sham and anachronism of which we are guilty. I do not enlarge on the -cost of war. No one to-day can be insensible of it or suggest that any -but the most imperious needs would justify us in retaining it. I -assume also that, after the lamentable behaviour of Germany, none will -question that there will be wars as long as militarism lasts, and that -the cost and carnage will increase prodigiously. - -The supreme point for us to realise is the comparative ease with which -this greatest of reforms can be accomplished. We have no rival schools -of economists or moralists or philosophers darkening counsel here. We -do not await a genius to discover the path for us. A plain and -seriously indisputable ideal is put before us: arbitration. A court -for exercising it has already been established: the Hague Tribunal. -Let the majority of people in the more powerful nations of the earth -agree to submit every international difference to that or some other -tribunal, and we have made an end of militarism and war. - -If this seem a hasty or superficial view of a grave problem, reflect -on the difficulties which a cautious or conservative thinker might -allege. He would, I fancy, on sincere consideration, admit that the -chief and most serious difficulty is not a reluctance based on -specific reasons, but a general apathy due to want of reflection. I am -not for a moment underrating the magnitude of the effort that will be -required in overcoming this apathy, in creating the general will. In -this respect, indeed, the pacifist reform is peculiarly hampered. -Pessimistic people ask how we came to boast of moral progress in -modern times when this military evil has become greater than ever. -They do not reflect on the special conditions of the problem. In -attacking almost every other evil--industrial injustice, say, or cruel -sport, or a stupid penal code--we have to deal only with our own -nation. We can carry the reform within our own frontiers, whatever -other nations do. In the case of militarism we cannot. All the Great -Powers, at least, must advance simultaneously. We have not to educate -a nation, but a planet. Pacifists have at times given the -impression--generally a wrong impression--that they forgot this; that -they advocated disarmament or relaxation of armament in our own -nation, whether other nations disarmed or no. In this way, and because -many pacifists have weakly opposed or carped at England's action in -this very grave crisis, they have done harm by making humanitarianism -seem unpractical, blindly sentimental, and dangerous. I need not -repeat that I have not the least sympathy with that sort of pacifism. -The reform must be international and thoroughly practical. - -But this large task of planting a definite conviction in the minds of -the majority in many nations does not conflict with what I said about -the essential clearness and simplicity of the reform. If you set out -to attack poverty or to reform marriage, you have first to settle very -serious controversies about the way to do it. There is no such -controversy here. There are, it is true, a few who still have in their -veins some of the blood of the medieval swashbuckler. They say that, -while a quarrel about territory might fitly be referred to a judge, an -outrage on our national honour must be expiated by blood. The idea is -purely barbaric. As if this river of human blood were not an -immeasurably greater outrage than the heated words of a nervous -diplomatist, or the jibes of a silly journalist, or the acts of an -excited crowd, or the guilt of a couple of assassins! As if an -international court could not devise some means of appeasing injured -honour as well as of restoring injured rights! It is dreadful -materialism, they say, to put honour in the scale with money. So men -said in the clubs of London a century ago in defence of the duel, and -we recognise in their pleas the lingering, more or less disguised, of -a barbaric sentiment. Most of us recognise that same feature in this -last apology for the duel of nations. If we can trust our individual -honour to a mediocre magistrate or judge, or a still worse jury, we -can certainly entrust our national honour to a group of the ablest and -most impartial lawyers of the world. It is sheer distrust of justice -to refuse it. - -Here again history is wholly on the side of reform. Which of the great -wars of the nineteenth century involved a point of honour that could -not, with entire decency, have been submitted to arbitration? Was -there such a point of honour in the Napoleonic wars? The -Prusso-Danish? The Prusso-Austrian? The Italian? The American Civil -War? The Franco-German? The Russo-Turkish? The South African? What -point was involved in any of them that could not have been settled -with far greater honour to the combatants and greater regard for -justice by an impartial tribunal? In most cases they were really wars -of aggression and expansion, like the war in which we are engaged. We -may at least ask the men who hold that medieval idea of war to -have--since they boast much of their courage--the elementary courage -to say so. - -There is no conceivable quarrel that cannot with perfect honour be -submitted to arbitration. And the ostensible ground of this colossal -struggle which is now exhausting Europe--the satisfaction due to -Austria for the assassination of the Archduke--was pre-eminently a -matter for a tribunal. The frivolity and insincerity with which these -grave issues are sometimes met are, to put it on the lowest level, -costly. Speaking in a London club some time ago, I urged this -substitution of arbitration for war. My opponent frivolously observed -that he was not sure that a court of great lawyers would be cheaper -than war, and there were some who quite seriously applauded. Yet -Europe had then actually expended about £2,000,000,000 in the -preliminary stages of its great war! - -Wherever there is a considerable and deliberate reluctance to -substitute arbitration for war, wherever these unsatisfactory pleas -for war are put forward, we find a hypocritical concealment of real -motives. If we would be practical we must candidly confront these -motives, and we shall find that the most persistent and most dangerous -of them is still the desire to gain territory. The spectacle of the -decay of the Ottoman Empire and the apparent helplessness of the -Balkan peoples had more to do with the militarism of European Powers -than they were willing to admit. That source of temptation is now -renewed, and most of the Powers have, or soon will have, all the -territory they can reasonably desire. The further distribution of -African territory could clearly be best controlled by an international -court. There remains one Power that will still feel the lust of -territory. Germany conspicuously thwarted in Europe the advance of the -pacifist reform because, as the whole world now sees, it had an -aggressive territorial ambition. We may assume that Austria will now -be cured of its lawless and costly designs, and that Germany will -remain the one unsated and discontented nation. But Europe will surely -have the elementary wisdom of refusing to maintain its terrible burden -on that account. It will pay us better to meet the real economic need -of Germany by a generous colonial deal, and then to use the power of -an international polity to destroy and prevent the revival of -militarism in that country. - -We should thus remove the last serious obstacle to the reform, and the -work might advance rapidly. The tribunal, as I said, exists, and has -had more experience than is generally realised. The Hague Conference -of 1907 established a Prize Court, with permanent salaried judges, and -an Arbitration Court. A large number of very grave quarrels have since -been adjusted by this tribunal, and, as Professor Schücking observes, -"more than a hundred contracts between States have been concluded in -which, on each occasion, two States made the Arbitration Court -obligatory." But, largely owing to the opposition of Germany and the -general apathy, the Court remained optional, and the Powers maintained -their armies for the settlement of quarrels in the old barbaric -manner. The next and last step is for all the Powers to recognise the -Court as compulsory, and to furnish it with an executive (a small -international army and navy) for the enforcement of its decisions. Our -vast armies and navies then become superfluous and would be disbanded -simultaneously, leaving only a small force in each country for the -suppression of native aggression (with the consent of the Hague Court) -and for use by the Court itself to enforce its verdicts or suppress -illegal attempts to arm. - -There is nothing Utopian or academic about this reform. A body of -high-minded lawyers and statesmen have for years discussed the details -of the scheme, and are ready to launch it whenever the various -Governments are compelled by public opinion to adopt it. The immediate -task is to create this pressure of public opinion. We may hope that, -after our ghastly lesson in the price of the military method, we shall -no longer be rebuffed with vapid phrases like: "Do not force the -pace." A business-man who talked nonsense of that kind would soon -find his level. We need to conduct our national and international life -on business-principles, to get rid as speedily as possible of a waste -and disorder which are an outrage on the intelligence of the race. I -look more confidently to business-men than to speech-making -politicians and sentimental moralists for the triumph of the reform. -Certain industries will, of course, be gravely dislocated, even -annihilated, by the change; and vast bodies of additional workers -will, in most countries, be thrown upon a crowded labour-market. From -the abstract economical point of view it is only a question of -transfer. Fifty millions which were spent on military industries will -now be used in enlarging other industries or creating new. In reality -there will be grave confusion; but that is due to the utterly -disorganised nature of our industrial world, which I discuss later. In -any case to allege this industrial difficulty as a serious reason -against disarmament is a very singular piece of folly. The cost and -trouble of adjusting this temporary dislocation would be infinitely -less than the cost and trouble of a war. - -We need, therefore, to persuade the public, which has borne its -military yoke and endured the occasional lash of war with the -placidity of a draught-ox--that is, candidly, how we shall appear in -the social history of the future--that it may escape the yoke and the -lash when it wills. Our Churches might make some atonement for a long -and lamentable neglect of their duty by organising a really spirited -collective campaign in this greatest of moral interests. The central -educative body should, however, be quite unsectarian. I take it that -an amalgamation of the various Peace Societies, strengthened by the -adhesion of our commercial and industrial leaders, would form this -central educative body. The present war would furnish it with a superb -text and an unanswerable argument. It ought, in the circumstances, to -capture each country in Europe more speedily than Cobden's famous -league captured England. The press would begin to assist at a certain -stage of progress. Even the politicians would presently lend their -oratory; especially as their prestige, at least in this country, would -hardly survive a second strain such as this war has put on it. Every -agency ought to be enlisted in impressing upon the public that, -whatever other reforms may imply, here we ask no sacrifice; we -indicate a way in which the community may, when it wills, rid itself -of a stupendous burden and set free enormous resources for social -improvement. - -Reformers are widely, and with some reason, accused of being dreamy -and unpractical. Here, at least, it will be seen that it is rather the -public and the opponents of reform who are dreamy, romantic, and -unpractical: that the reform itself is a business proposition of the -most attractive and promising character. But let us be even more -practical. To forecast the future is an interesting intellectual -recreation; but to close one's mind entirely against the -possibilities and dangers of the future is positive folly. Let us -glance at the future. - -I have not the faintest hope that the Allied Powers will, as they -ought to do, disarm Germany and Austria and then disarm themselves, -when the war is over. Then Germany will concentrate all its marvellous -power of organisation, dissimulation, and intrigue in a dream of -_revanche_. The appalling incompetence displayed by what we may call, -in the broadest sense, our Intelligence Department and our War Office -will return, when the temporary accession of business-ability has been -withdrawn from it. There will be no serious inquiry into our -scandalous indolence in the early period of the war, our complete -failure to forecast the conditions of war, and our heavy somnolence -during Germany's feverish preparations, although the documents -published by the French Government show that, by 1913 at least, -sharp-sighted foreign representatives saw clearly that war was, to put -it moderately, highly probable. In point of fact, our authorities knew -that war was gravely imminent. I happen to know, from a little breach -of confidence, that our War Office secretly warned certain reservists -in June 1914 (even before the Serajevo murder) to be ready. The men -were ready, and have borne _their_ share superbly; but our authorities -had to confess that, even after nine months' experience of the war, -they were immeasurably behind Germany in the production of the two -vital necessaries of a modern war--machine-guns and high-explosive -shells. - -Our experts will return to this comfortable somnolence. There will be -no serious inquiry. Politicians and their advisers will escape in a -cloud of thrilling emotions and enthusiastic rhetoric. Persistent -questioners, who are rudely impatient of party-discipline, will be -snubbed and evaded. Any other questioners, not of the political world, -will be ignored. We shall return to British dignity and placidity. -Germany will work and intrigue as it never worked and intrigued -before. There will be grave domestic trouble in Russia and, as in the -case of Turkey, German representatives will think while British -representatives play. The preparations may occupy ten years or twenty -years, but they will proceed. The aim will be a war with Russia -neutral or friendly to Germany. If it occurs ... One has only to -imagine where we should be to-day if Germany had not made the error of -abandoning the Bismarckian tradition. - -Behind this is a further possibility. China is just as capable as -Japan of learning the use of thirteen-inch guns and maxims. Sir Hiram -Maxim, in fact, who knows both China and the gun, quite agrees with me -on that. And China has, behind that stoical and almost childlike -expression it presents to Europe, an acute memory that for thirty -years we have treated it with flagrant injustice. It may take decades -to undo the evil of ages of Manchu misgovernment and organise the -resources of the country, but the day will come when an alert and -powerful nation of 500,000,000 Orientals will press against its -frontiers. We may remember that the Mongol banners have before now -fluttered over Moscow and reached the Mediterranean. And the Mongols -are not the only awakening people. We may yet see an anti-European -combination from the Asiatic shore of the Pacific to the African shore -of the Atlantic. These are some of the possibilities we hand on to our -children if we do not in time abandon the military system. - -To that pass has it brought us. We writhe and groan under the terrible -burden it lays on us, and we shrink from contemplating the future; yet -we might cast off the burden and rid the future of peril when we will. -We disavow the buccaneering spirit, and protest that we arm only in -defence against each other; and one wonders whether to smile or weep -at the obtuseness which prevents us from adopting a simple and humane -means of defence instead of this exhausting barbarism. We -"humanise" war, yet cling needlessly to the whole inhuman -business. We are teaching the backward nations to arm,--we would -gladly supply them with tutors and arms at any time,--and may be thus -preparing a more colossal conflict than ever. Surely the man or woman -of the twenty-first century will find us an enigma! - -Let me close with a repetition of my protest against the -misconstruction to which such a book as this is always exposed. I -advocate no Utopian scheme, but one which some of the ablest lawyers, -statesmen, and business-men in Europe have discussed for years and -warmly endorsed. I have no wish to conceal technical difficulties -under sentimental phrases, but these men, to whom I refer, are -prepared to meet the difficulties. I regard the work of the soldier as -honourable and worthy, as long as we impose the military system on -each other; and at this particular juncture regret only that I am long -past the age of bearing arms. I plead, as long as the system lasts, -for unquestionable efficiency in national defence, whatever it cost. -But I say that, in this military system, we are enthroning the -hollowest and most ghastly sham that ever deluded humanity: that, when -we have the courage or wisdom to strip it of its tinselled robes, we -will shudder at sight of the gaunt frame of death which has ruled -civilisation for so many thousand years: that nothing is wanting but -the general will to dethrone this mockery of a god: and that, when we -have abolished militarism and war, we shall advance along the way of -social improvement with far lighter steps and vastly increased -resources. - - - CHAPTER III. - THE FOLLIES OF SHAM PATRIOTISM - -WHEN warfare is abolished, and men no longer peep at their foreign -neighbours over hedges of bayonets, there will be a number of less -important international absurdities to remove. Some three hundred -years ago, we discovered that the earth was a globe. To-day we are -appreciating that this globe is the property of the human race, and -that the friendly co-operation of all branches of the race is -extremely desirable. National efforts and sacrifices are undone by -international waste and disorder. We begin to perceive this, and the -most sober of us must look forward to a time when the scattered and -antagonistic elements of the race will agree upon some graceful design -of a City of Man, and unite in constructing it. - -That familiar phrase, the Brotherhood of Men, sounds rather hollow in -the ears of many. I am avoiding pretty phrases and disputable creeds -and subtle philosophies--I am trying to keep in direct contact with -the realities of life--and therefore I do not use it. But the sincere -sentiment behind it, the feeling that we men and women do form one -large family in possession of an immense and infinitely fertile -estate, and that we will develop our property more advantageously for -each of us if we act as though we were brothers, can hardly be -challenged. The question of the exact expression of our relationship -to each other may be left to poets and scientists. - -Those lighter shams of patriotism, which I shall describe in this -chapter as hampering the march of the race, will be recognised even by -men who, with Carlyle or Nietzsche, refuse the title of brother to -some of their fellows. We ourselves smile at them sometimes, and at -the cheerfulness with which we endure the grave inconvenience they put -on us; and they will certainly provoke the laughter of the scholars -who will some day learnedly discuss the question whether we men and -women of the twentieth century were or were not civilised. They have, -it is true, a much more serious aspect; they are important auxiliaries -of the war-god. On the whole, however, they are shams that we ought to -kill with ridicule and bury with genial disdain. They are practices or -institutions which we have plainly inherited from the barbaric past, -when men were slaves of tradition, kingly or priestly, and dare hardly -use their own intelligence on their own habits. In this age of ours, -when we are at last becoming the masters, instead of the slaves, of -our traditions, they are regarded by large bodies of men and women in -every civilised country as stupid, anachronistic, and mischievous. - -In fact, there is here again no serious difference of opinion. One has -not to force one's way through some controversial thicket before one -can discover the correct path of reform. The way lies perfectly clear -before us, and we can enter it at any time when we have the collective -will to do so. One might again describe the proposal, not as a -"reform"--since many people instinctively shrink from the word -reform--but as a business proposition of the simplest and most -profitable character. I speak of those false and antiquated freaks of -patriotism which keep different groups of human beings speaking -different languages, using different weights and measures, wrestling -with each other's mysterious coinage, collecting each other's -stamps, and stumbling against the many other irritating diversities -which make one part of the earth "foreign" to another. It may seem -to imply some lack of sense of proportion to pass from so grave a -subject as war to these matters, but a very little reflection will -show how closely they are connected. - -The first and most ludicrous of them is the stubbornness with which -each fragment of the race prides itself on having a language of its -own. This confusion of tongues has irritated and inconvenienced and -helped to exasperate against each other the various sections of the -human community for thousands of years, although we could suppress it -at will in half a generation. Millions of us have an acute and -constant experience of the absurdity of the system. In our schools, -where mind and body require the fullest possible attention during the -few years of training, we devote a large proportion of the time to -teaching children how the same idea may be expressed by half a dozen -different sounds. The higher the class of school, the more valuable -and skilled the teacher, the more time must be wasted in learning how -ancient Greeks and Romans, or how Germans and French and Italians, -have invented different sounds from ours for expressing the same -ideas. The slenderness of the protest one hears against this polyglot -system from educators themselves is amazing. They have, it is true, -begun to rebel in large numbers against the teaching of dead -languages, but comparatively few of them support the increasing demand -for that adoption of a common tongue which would do so much for the -advance of education. - -Those whose parents did not happen to be wealthy enough in their youth -to send them to schools which have the distinction of teaching -"languages" are hampered in a hundred ways. If they travel, they -must pay sycophantic waiters and couriers to give them a dim -understanding of the human world through which they pass. Even in -their own country they cannot order a dinner at any well-ordered -restaurant without first studying a lengthy vocabulary of superfluous -sounds, or without practising a dozen little hypocrisies to conceal -their ignorance. In large colonial hotels, where hardly a single -person who does not speak English is ever found, one receives a -"menu" with the usual intimidating array of French phrases. "You -ought to supply dictionaries with this sort of thing!" said an angry -young squatter, taking a seat beside me in the Grand Hotel at -Melbourne, to the waiter. If you are travelling for business, or even -transacting business at home, you must have your foreign -correspondents and agents; and with their aid you follow dimly the -very interesting advances and experiments that are being made in your -department abroad. Our Governments must pay more heavily for -diplomatic and consular service. Our books and magazines make a parade -of foreign phrases which have not yet become as familiar as English. -Our shopkeepers add twenty-five per cent. to the cost of our linen by -calling it "lingerie." ... - -We are tormented in a hundred ways, yet we contemplate this absurd -muddle and waste with as resigned an air as if we still believed that -the Almighty had, in a fit of temper, created the confusion of tongues -at ancient Babel. So subtle and strong is the hold of custom on us -that we rarely even ask ourselves whether this is a wise or an -unalterable arrangement. We hear with indifference, if not with -amusement, of societies which propose to adopt one international -tongue in the place of this ridiculous confusion; we languidly picture -to ourselves little groups of long-haired faddists meeting in bleak -halls to attract our duller neighbours to the cultivation of one more -innocent enthusiasm. We have not time for these things. When a -sensible man has given adequate time to business and pleasure, he has, -he says, no hours to spare for these idealistic luxuries. Yet a -moment's serious reflection would show us that the sole aim of these -"faddists" is to make life _less_ crowded and laborious, to -lighten our business and add to our pleasure, to introduce -common-sense into a large part of our conduct. To such strange -contradictions and absurdities does this resolve to resist innovation -bring us. - -Most people are, perhaps,--if they ever give a thought to the -matter,--under the impression that it is a mountainous and -impracticable task to introduce such a reform into the life of the -world. It is, on the contrary, one of the simplest and most -practicable reforms to which men could set their hands. It is even -less controversial a measure than the abolition of war. There are few -prejudices of our time which have not attracted the ingenuity of some -faddist or other; but this is one of the few. More emphatically here -than in the case of war, all that we need is the will of the majority -to change our anachronistic practice. When one regards the entirely -uncontroversial nature of the reform and the immense economy it will -entail, it is hardly unreasonable to hope that this will of the -majority may soon be secured. - -I assume that, when we agree to direct our "Governments" to carry -out this elementary improvement of international life, they will -summon an international commission of philologists, educators, and -commercial men, whose business it will be to create a new language. -This step will not be taken until the voluntary movement for reform -has reached such proportions as to arouse the interest of politicians; -but in the end we rely on governmental action, as it is necessary to -reform schools and Parliaments. This international commission will, no -doubt, examine impartially such languages as Esperanto. Possibly these -existing international tongues will be found more complex than an -ideal language ought to be, and less attentive to the finer values of -speech. For the simple purpose of expression it is possible to create -a tongue far less complex than any in use in the civilised world -to-day: a tongue that could be learned in a few months even by the -untrained intelligence. It would proceed on the entirely opposite -principle to that of modern word-makers: the principle, for instance, -that changes "fireworks" into "pyrotechnics" (a piece of bad -Greek for good English), or "gardening" into "horticulture." -The use of this debased Latin and Greek in science has a certain -advantage under our present polyglot system, as it is an approach -toward international agreement, but it is making more onerous than -ever the burden of our languages. We want a simple means of expression -and intercourse, with a power of expanding to meet the advance of -thought and discovery without needing to run to such lengths as -"diaminotrihydroxydodecanoic acid." No existing national speech -would meet the purpose, least of all English; but it would be -advisable to have some regard to æsthetic interests in framing a new -language, and the old tongues would supply a good deal of material in -this regard. The success of the poet depends on qualities of words as -well as qualities of imagination, and we have no wish, like Plato, to -exclude poets from the ideal commonwealth. We should retain large -numbers of these short expressive words. - -Great numbers of people hesitate in face of this proposal because they -feel that it is a very large innovation, however simple and -indisputable it is in principle. They contemplate such things as a -nervous child gazes on the sea from the steps of a bathing machine. -Intellectually, a few such plunges would be of incalculable service to -our generation. One can understand people hesitating before some -disputed economic or political scheme, but to shrink from adopting -plain and large reforms such as this is not a sign of health. We need -to purge our sluggish imaginations of their prejudices, to brace our -intellectual power, to take pride in our creativeness. - -When the new international tongue is ready, a few years will suffice -to make it prevail over the older languages in the leading countries -which helped to set up the commission. It will become the one speech -of the school, the press, commerce, law, government, and, possibly, -the church. The travelling public will, as every Esperantist knows, at -once discover the advantage. The commercial world will find it a -splendid economy and a priceless boon to international trade. A man -will be able to travel from London to Tokyo with as little difficulty -as from Woolwich to Ealing; and it will be found that when the foreign -tongue, which so instinctively suggests to us the uniform of an enemy, -has disappeared, one of the worst obstacles to mutual good-feeling -will be removed. When the Englishman can talk to the Berliner with -perfect ease,--I assume that all beginnings of dialect would be -suppressed as mercilessly as weeds in a well-kept garden,--just as a -citizen of London now talks with a citizen of New York or Sydney, a -very dangerous chasm will be bridged. It is quite certain that the -calamitous attitude of modern Germany could not have proceeded to such -a dangerous pitch if the Imperialist and other literature which is -responsible for it had been intelligible to the whole of Europe. A few -students of particular aspects of German life were more or less -acquainted with it, and we refused to believe then. Now we discover, -to our amazement, that a neighbouring nation has for decades been -openly educated up to a pitch of unscrupulous aggression, and the -world has been threatened with an incalculable catastrophe. I am not -overlooking the real reasons for this development, but I say -confidently that it would have been impossible if a national -literature were not generally confined within the nation which -produces it. - -In the school the advantage would be very considerable. Our -overstrained and bespectacled children would be spared several hours a -day of their school-work or home-work. The whole ancient and -modern-language section of the curriculum would be suppressed, and -this suppression, with other reforms which I will describe later, -would enlarge the teacher's opportunity of giving real education and -spare the pupil a great deal of devastating brain-fag. For the -education of older people the gain would be almost as great. A -Birmingham artisan could read the latest novel of d'Annunzio or -latest play of Hauptmann without the assistance of expert or inexpert -translators. All the older literature that is worth preserving would -be translated by specially qualified interpreters into the new tongue, -and the originals would then become the toys of leisured pedants. If, -as I suggested, a proper attention to word-values were secured in the -making of the new tongue, there is no reason why it should not express -poetical sentiments as gracefully and pleasantly as any existing -tongue. - -Is there any Utopian element in this scheme? Most people will probably -recognise that the only bit of utopianism in it is the expectation -that the majority of any nation can be induced to adopt it. That might -seem to justify one in using impatient language about the wisdom of -the majority of us, but it is no reflection on the scheme itself. The -reformer, however, is ill-advised in reflecting on the intelligence of -his fellows. Carlyle's "twenty-seven millions, mostly fools," -discovered in the end that all their follies, which he so vigorously -denounced in his _Latter-Day Pamphlets_, were more permanent and -accurate than his "eternal verities." It is usually want of -leisure or immediate profit which alienates the public from schemes of -reform. Possibly a scheme which so plainly promises more leisure to us -and a very considerable profit may hope to win attention. The reform -of spelling I, of course, take as an integral part of the scheme. - -But this reform of international intercourse must take a more -comprehensive shape than the mere suppression of this confusing -plurality of tongues. It is just as foolish of us to maintain a -plurality of weights and measures, of coinage and postage-stamps, of -social and civic and juridical forms. Even if we confine our attention -to the leading civilised nations, we find in these respects a -confusion which outrages the elementary instincts of commercial life -and lays a monstrous burden of superfluous trouble on us all. -Travellers and business-men endure it year after year with the most -amazing patience. Men who would be fired to instant action if they -found a trace of such disorder in their domestic or commercial -concerns resign themselves to this colossal muddle of international -intercourse as calmly as if it were a providential and entirely sacred -arrangement. I remember once passing rather rapidly from Lucerne to -London, by way of Wiesbaden, Cologne, and Brussels: on another -occasion by way of Cologne and Amsterdam. The hours one has to spend -in calculating coinage (or lose the exchange-value), the worry -expended in struggling for stamps or dinners in the less familiar -tongues, the confusion of train-rules and street-usages and civic -regulations, reflect a system of chaotic disorder; to say nothing of -the "sizes" of boots or collars you need, the weight of tobacco or -fruit, and so on. - -All this is a portentous example of slavery to tradition, whether the -tradition be reasonable or no. We have not the slightest regard for -the historical development of this muddle and the peculiar folly of -retaining it in our generation. Our earlier ancestors measured their -woollens or their corn or their mead by the simple standards that are -apt to occur to primitive peoples. Even, however, where the same -standard occurred to, or commended itself to, different and remote -communities, its vagueness was fatal. "A thousand paces" (a -_mille_, as the Romans said) seemed a fair reckoning for long -distances, but the stretch varied, and we have Irish miles and German -miles and English miles and nautical miles. Our ounces and yards and -pints are as intelligent as most of the other things which the ancient -Briton invented, but, being British, they seem sacred to us. A hundred -years ago a far superior standard, the decimal system, was put before -us, but our fathers felt that it smacked of the French Revolution and -Napoleon and atheism. We smile at their prejudice, yet we have no -greater disposition to alter our unintelligent ways. The German would -be horrified at having to reckon his distances in kilometres. The -British lion, the French or German or Russian or American -eagle,--there is a marvellous love of that symbol of aspiration and -progress,--or the rising sun of Japan, must have its own system of -weights and measures and coins. Passing through a strip of Canada some -months ago I had, from lack of the local stamps, to entrust my post to -a kindly waitress; and was, of course, robbed. Of late years, -Australia has patriotically resolved to have its own coins, and has -fought parliamentary battles over its stamps. - -The often-imagined visitor from another planet would not be so much -surprised at this extraordinary and costly muddle of patriotic shams -as at our faculty for progress in commerce and industry amidst it all. -We seem to be quite blind to the larger applications of our modern -doctrine of efficiency. Regarded as an economic system, which it -really is, the international arrangement of our civilised world is -full of crudities which are more worthy of a Papuan pedlar. The -contrast between the methods of a large Chicago store or a British or -German engineering-business and the methods we retain in far larger -and more important concerns will one day be a subject of amazement. -The evil of which I am speaking eats into the very heart of an -industrial and commercial system which prides itself on its order, -economy, and efficiency. Yet this comprehensive muddle is contemplated -almost without protest by business-men. If it were merely the leisure -hours of travellers which were dissipated in this abstruse study of -foreign tongues and coins and customs, we might merely deplore -proverbial vagaries of taste. But the abuse is immeasurably greater -than this; the advantage we should gain by this scheme of unification -can scarcely be calculated. One would think that the reform was really -difficult to achieve, or lay under the frown of some imposing school -of theologians or moralists or economists! - -I omit from the list of perversities whatever is the subject of -serious economic controversy. Such things as national tariffs, for -instance. However arguable the question may be in England, even the -free-trader usually appreciates in such a country as Australia the -plea for a protective tariff. There is, at all events, a very serious -controversy on the general issue, and it would not be expedient to -include among plain reforms any scheme of universal free-trade or -universal protection. It is enough to point out that certain obvious, -stupid, and mischievous survivals of old conditions gravely hamper our -international intercourse. The prestige of our civilisation, as well -as a common-sense view of our interest, demand that we shall suppress -them. More disputable reforms may be considered afterwards. Our usual -method is, one fears, to discuss the more disputable reforms first. - -It is difficult to conceive any plea being put forward on behalf of -these irrational old customs, but a sufficiently ingenious and -superficial apologist might claim that patriotism bids us maintain -them. There is no doubt that the work of reform will have to proceed -over the bodies of a number of the pettier patriots. No one can -suppose that the task of unification will be accomplished without -friction. German professors and Bulgarian politicians will protest -against this pernicious cosmopolitan spirit, this horrible wish to -denationalise us, this tampering with the sources of national energy. -Ardent Irishmen and Welshmen will form very talkative associations for -the defence of "the grand old tongue." Rival languages will be put -forward, and Esperanto will strain its hitherto respectable resources -in denouncing Volapük or the new official speech. French and English -and German savants will heatedly press the claims of ideal words in -their respective languages to be taken over, and pamphleteers will -discuss whether Herr Professor Doktor Schmidt did or did not -contribute more suggestions than Professor Smith. A higher criticism -of the new language will spread its pale growth like a parasitic -fungus. - -What is patriotism? In the sense in which the word is still widely, if -not generally, understood, it stands for a sentiment that belongs -essentially to a pre-rational age and cannot survive unchanged in a -rational age. This does not mean that a rational age has no place for -sentiments; it means that the sentiments must not affront reason. We -cannot at once pride ourselves on being paragons of common-sense, yet -slaves to a sentiment which common-sense must not examine too closely. -Loyalty to that larger national family to which we belong: cordial and -generous support of its interests: sacrifice, if need be, for its just -ambitions: pride in its worthy achievements, even in its worthier -superiorities--these are useful and intelligible sentiments, and it is -not unreasonable to make a flag the visible symbol of these just -interests and achievements. But a blind and undiscriminating devotion -to flag or king, a glorification of our national family above others -in the roystering fashion of the Middle Ages, a refusal to ask if the -demands of our rulers are just or if the interests we are pressed to -support are sound and equitable, an obstinate pride in a thing because -it is British or German, whether it be wise or no--these are -sentiments entirely at variance with the best spirit of our age. We -may recognise that even the crude old patriotism has contributed much -to the advance of civilisation. This gathering of men into rival -national groups has forced the pace, and has at times developed noble -qualities. But we must admit also that the same patriotism has -inspired hundreds of unjust and stupid wars, and has maintained on -their thrones kings and queens who ought to have been dismissed with -ignominy. - -The progress of civilisation does not entail the suppression, but the -refinement, of sentiment, as is very plainly seen in the supposed -implications of patriotism. When it is urged that these absurd -national diversities of speech and coinage must be sustained on the -ground of patriotism, we ask at once which sound element of patriotism -could demand such an anachronism? It is, surely, only the spurious -medieval sentiment that could dictate so utter an absurdity! Will the -interests of England be endangered because we remove a very serious -burden from its economic life and its educational activity? Shall we -be less prosperous, less happy, less respected, for correcting an -antiquated and foolish practice? These things, we may reflect, were -not stupid at the time when they were developed. The resolute patriot -may, if he wills, take pride in the relative ingenuity of the people -who invented them. Each separate national system was the outcome of -special conditions, and the slender commerce between the different -communities at the time they were developed did not require a rigorous -international standard. One bartered by the piece or the lump. But it -is sheer folly to ignore the modern transformation of international -life: to fancy that our unwillingness to exert ourselves, even for our -own advantage, may be ascribed to some lofty virtue. - -It need hardly be said that I am not cherishing a dream of spreading -at once over the entire planet a uniformity of language and coins and -standards. The leading civilised nations might, within a few years, -adopt such a scheme; and a certain number of the smaller and less -advanced nations, which aspire to membership of the civilised group, -would probably accept the reform speedily enough. On the other hand, -the permeation of the lower races with our ideas would be a slow and -difficult process: a part of that general task of civilising the whole -race which we have sooner or later to confront. This difficulty does -not at all affect the advantage we should gain by adopting a scheme of -unification within the family of civilised nations, and it cannot be -pleaded as a reason for postponement. But all the reforms I have -hitherto discussed will, when they have spread over the more highly -organised countries, find a temporary check in this chaotic jumble of -peoples on the fringe of civilisation, and it may be useful to discuss -the principles which ought to inform our attitude toward them. - -Our generation looks out upon these backward branches of the race, not -only with a finer sentiment and a stricter regard for principle than -any previous generation did, but with a very much clearer knowledge of -their meaning. We may, of course, be faithless to our principles in -cases: we may casuistically wrap a piece of frank buccaneering of the -old type in hypocritical humanitarian phrases. The general attitude -is, however, more enlightened, as these pieces of hypocrisy themselves -show. We may or may not hold the doctrine of universal brotherhood; at -least we understand the true relation of these more backward races to -ourselves, and we are in a much better position to determine our right -and our duties. We have advanced considerably since, little more than -half a century ago, a stern moralist like Carlyle could defend -black-slavery and denounce as "a gospel of dirt" the scientific -revelation which threw light and hope on inferior types of manhood. - -The chief difference is that we now see the true relation of the lower -races to the higher. It is false to say, as Carlyle did, that some -races were created with higher gifts than others, and were therefore -divinely appointed as the master-races. The notion is as absurd as the -old and profitable legend of the laying of a primitive curse on Ham -and his black descendants. Difference of geographical conditions is -the chief clue to the unequal development of the various branches of -the race. I have in various works developed this theme and will not -linger over it here. You have at the start the same human material and -capacities in all the scattered groups. But some have been for ages -isolated from the stimulating contact of races with a different or a -higher culture, and this is the essential condition of advance. Others -have, by sheer chance, been so situated that they enjoyed this -stimulation in an extraordinary degree. On this principle we can -understand the birth of civilisation in that fermenting mass of -peoples which settled between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf -ages ago, and the direction of the advancing stream of culture, partly -eastward to India and China, but mainly in the more favourable -north-western direction. - -It is, therefore, no difference of aboriginal outfit, but a difference -in the chances of migration and situation, which accounts for the -cultural diversity of races. Yet we must not at once infer that any -lower race can, on this account, be drawn from its isolation and -lifted to the higher level. There is reason to believe that a race -loses its educability if it remains unprogressive for too long a -period. The physiological reason may be that the skull closes firmly, -at a relatively early age, over the brain in a people in which -expansion of brain after puberty has not been encouraged. Take the -three "lower races" of Australasia. The Tasmanian was one of the -oldest and least cultured branches of the human family, and he died -out within a century after contact with the whites. The Maori of New -Zealand is the most recent and most advanced of the three aboriginal -races. With the Polynesian, he is closely related to the European or -Caucasic race, and is certainly educable. The Australian black comes -between the two in culture and in the period of his isolation. -Australian scientific men who have made the most sympathetic efforts -to uplift the black tell me that they have failed, and the race seems -to be doomed. - -These scientific principles have discredited the old legendary notions -about the lower races, but we must not as yet make dogmas of them. -Nothing but candid and careful experience will show which races are -educable and which ineducable. It is very probable that such peoples -as the wild Veddahs of Ceylon, the Aetas of the Philippines, the -Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego, and some of the Central African groups, -will prove ineducable. Other races which have been considered -"savage" are already proving educable, either as a body or in -large numbers of instances. Many peoples have not been tested at all. -We are only just at the fringe of this vast and interesting problem. - -In regard to the races which, after humane and thorough experiment, -prove entirely ineducable, the solution does not offer much -difficulty. Once their primitive habits are disturbed, and they begin -to live on a pension allotted them by the European nations which have -seized their territory, they gradually die out. A very good case may -be established by those writers who hold that races which cling -incurably to barbarism ought to be painlessly extirpated, or prevented -from multiplying. Such races as the Australian blacks are quite -familiar with a process of sterilisation which does not interfere with -their enjoyment of life. On the other hand, the life led by these -domesticated but ineducable savages is hardly worth preserving at all. -However, as they are disappearing, one need not press that point. The -claim of sane humanitarians, that we have no right to interfere with -their conditions and seize their territory, is quite unsound. The -human family has a right to see large fertile regions of the earth -developed. Who regrets to-day that the Amerinds were pensioned in -order to find room for Canada and the United States and Brazil and -Argentina? Who does not see the advantage of peopling Australia with a -fine and advancing civilisation of (eventually) twenty or thirty -million progressive whites instead of a few hundred thousand miserable -aboriginals? - -At the other end of the scale we have, as I said, peoples who are most -probably or certainly educable. At a hazard one might instance the -Thibetans and Siberian Mongolians, the Koreans, the Maoris and -Polynesians, the Lapps (of the same blood as the Finns), and a large -number of Asiatic and African peoples. We must keep in mind the high -civilisation reached by the Amerinds of Peru, whereas their modern -descendants, the Quichwas, seem so negligible. In Africa there is a -vast amount of experiment and classification to do, and already the -pure Bantu races are furnishing scores of men who are susceptible of a -university education. I know several of them who are as competent and -well-educated as the average English university man. - -Has the white race a duty ("the white man's burden") to attempt -to civilise the coloured races? I speak in general terms, of course. -It is sheer insolence to regard the Chinese or Burmese--one must not -mention the Japanese--as lower races. Now, speaking in the abstract, -as a matter of general moral principle, the white has no clear duty to -civilise the coloured races. The sentiment of brotherhood may inspire -a feeling of duty in some, but one cannot build firmly on that phrase. -It is, however, not an abstract ethical question. The white men have, -in point of fact, spread over the globe, and they are in a fair way to -occupy all the territory on which the coloured races (except the -Chinese and Japanese and Burmese) were settled. Only an attitude of -general unscrupulousness could ignore the obligation which this -seizure of territory implies. England and Germany have, for instance, -occupied the islands of the Pacific and made their inhabitants a -"subject race." They have done this, not only with a gross lack of -discrimination between the Polynesian (who is certainly educable) and -the much lower Melanesian, but with a quite cynical idea of the -"civilising" process. The work has been left to sailors and -travellers, who have decimated the population by spirits and syphilis, -or to the crudities of Christian missionaries. The joy of native life -has been killed, and the enforcement of clothing (which the natives -naturally cast off in the cooler evening, when the sensitive European -was not able to see them) has led to an appalling amount of pneumonia -and phthisis. We have done much to turn a wonderfully happy and -healthy people into a gin-drinking swaddled caricature of a Bank -Holiday crowd. - -But the lists of our crimes in dealing with the lower races need not -be given here. If we white people are to go out among the more -backward coloured races, and to profess that we are assuming the -paternal function of administering their territory, we must act on -some principle. It is rather late in the history of the world to send -out civilising expeditions which consist of missionaries presenting -copies of the Sermon on the Mount, and soldiers and merchants who, in -flagrant contradiction to the Sermon on the Mount, exploit the natives -and appropriate their soil. There must be a serious attempt to educate -them, and then an elimination of the unfit. Africa will prove a -formidable region for this discriminating work. The Mohammedans -themselves have already proved that many of its peoples are capable of -culture. - -We have a special problem in our treatment of races which, like the -Hindus and Egyptians, have already been drawn into the white system. -Let us be quite candid with ourselves in this matter. We appropriated -their territory for our advantage, not theirs, and our professed -modern sentiments are compelling us to say that we are not in -possession of their territory in their interest. We protect the Hindu -from native despots, the Egyptian from a cruel Mahdi or Pacha, the -retired official tells you. However, I do not propose that we should -investigate the title-deeds of all our existing empires as regards -their oversea possessions; nor do I in the least advocate the -dismemberment of such large unities as the British Empire. But the -principle on which some would stake our existence in India or Egypt, -the maxim that "What we have we hold,"--which is often illustrated -by a picture of a particularly stupid-looking bull-dog guarding the -British flag,--is the first principle of the pickpocket and the -burglar. Modern sentiment has to grant colonial empires a sort of -"Bula de Composicion," such as the Spanish Church, for a -consideration, grants to pickpockets. The best compromise is that the -peoples which are to-day linked in empires should remain linked; not -as dominant and subject peoples, but as sister-nations working out the -destiny of the race according to the highest standards. This implies -that, as they assimilate Western culture (as the Hindus are quite -rapidly doing), they shall be more and more entrusted with the -administration of their own countries. The very different situation of -colonies need not be discussed. When Australia and Canada find, if -they ever do find, that it is to their interest to set up complete -independence, they will not cut the cable: they will cast it off as -calmly and confidently as they now cast off the cable of an Orient -liner on the quays at Sydney. - -Along these lines we may forecast the future, and very slow, drafting -of the more backward peoples into the homogeneous family of the more -civilised races. The unification of languages, coinage, etc., will be -gradually extended to them. But it is not my purpose in this work to -contemplate remote tasks and contingencies. A great and practicable -reform lies at our doors. The overwhelming majority of the race are -already incorporated in civilised nations, and the work of -organisation amongst these is urgent and comparatively easy. I am not -advocating a fantastic and lofty scheme for which one needs to be -prepared by the acceptance of advanced humanitarian sentiments. What -I am pleading for is the application to international life of our -treasured maxims of common-sense and efficiency. Those simple and -indisputable maxims condemn in the most stringent terms the patriotic -shams which we suffer to perplex and burden our life. Let us run the -planet on recognised business-principles. - - - CHAPTER IV. - POLITICAL SHAMS - -THE reforms I have so far advocated have one peculiar -characteristic. They are urgent, easy to grasp, indisputable in -principle, and enormously advantageous; but they need international -co-operation, and we are only just beginning to form those friendly -international contacts which may lead to agreement. Hence it is that, -although very contentious reforms have already been realised, these -linger, as we say, outside the range of practical politics. But this -very phrase reminds us at once of another fundamental irregularity of -our life. The man who thinks a proposal dismissed because it is not -within the range of practical politics illustrates admirably the -indolence of mind which I am assailing. If a useful and economical -device were put before him in his business-capacity, and he were told -that his business had no room for it, he would at once ask what was -wrong with the business. I am contending all through for the -application of this progressive spirit to larger concerns than stores -or workshops. If our political system, to which we entrust these large -concerns, absolutely ignores some of our finest chances of profit, -there is something wrong with the system. Our servants are not doing -what they are paid to do. - -As I have already briefly contended, our recent experience furnishes a -very ghastly confirmation of this suspicion. The British Empire will -survive the dangers that beset it, though it will be deeply impaired -economically, for two fundamental reasons: the Allies have double the -population of the Central European Powers, and they have, including in -this respect the United States, far larger ultimate resources in -material and money. The fact that we do eventually muddle through -will, one fears, content the majority of our people, but the -thoughtful patriot will ask two questions. How many hundred millions -has our slowness in mobilising our resources cost us, by protracting -the war? And what is likely to be the fate of the British Empire if, -with a similar slackness, it has at some later date to meet a -numerically equal and far more alert enemy? - -Let me briefly recount the facts which show that our national business -has been grossly mismanaged. Can any person look back on all the facts -which are now public property and say that our soldiers and statesmen -were innocent in not perceiving the grave possibility of war with -Germany at any time in the last three years? That, however, will -scarcely be said: the readiness of our fleet is a sufficient reply. We -know further that the general character of the war was foreseen. -England was to help France and Belgium, on French or Belgian soil. -England's co-operation on land was, as events have shown, vitally -necessary. Yet the unpreparedness of Britain for a great continental -campaign was entirely scandalous. No doubt there would have been a -risk in openly enlarging the army or creating great stores of -material. Germany would, in its unamiable way, have asked questions. -Tender-hearted Members of Parliament would have denounced our -provocative proceedings. But a preparation of plans, a census of our -resources, a scheme for the immediate enlistment of the -business-ability of the country and the full use of all our industrial -machinery--these and a dozen other most important measures could have -been taken in this country as safely and secretly as they were in -Germany. Not only were they not taken, but the military preparations -were actually relaxed. It has transpired, and is not disputed, that -our great Arsenal was only partially occupied; and Mr. A. Chamberlain -has publicly stated that Kynochs had for the year 1914--the expected -year of war--a Government order two-thirds less than they are capable -of executing in a week, and do now execute in a week. - -The second fact is the remarkable failure to forecast the conditions -of the war. If it be urged that a layman cannot judge how far such a -failure is culpable, the answer is prompt: the German authorities, who -had had no more experience of war than we, did forecast the -conditions. Their minute and energetic elaboration of the whole scheme -of the war contrasts extraordinarily with the sluggish and -conventional ease of our authorities. - -The third and gravest fact is our appalling and costly slowness in -mobilising our resources when the war began. Six months after the -outbreak of war I went over a very large engineering shop in the -north. Out of hundreds of men only a score or two were engaged on -war-material: and one of the two objects on which this mere handful of -men were engaged has proved to be wholly valueless. At that time, and -for months afterwards, the workers of Britain were encouraged in their -easy ways, and the bulk of the manufacturers were encouraged to go on -with their usual business, by official assurances that no greater -effort was needed. When our disgusted soldiers sent us a message that, -not "the weather," but a scandalous shortage of ammunition and -machine-guns kept them back, the Prime Minister, quoting the -"highest available authority," publicly declared this to be -untrue. We were asked rather to admire the way in which we had -dispatched the greatest expeditionary force known in history: as if -the enormous progress of modern times did not make this superiority a -matter of course. When criticism increased, we cried for the gag and -the public prosecutor, and we garlanded the portraits of the very men -who had disgraced us; and we agreed to the retention or promotion of -incompetent men, on obvious party-grounds. - -Happily one minister had the grit and patriotism to call to his aid a -group of business-men, and the facts could no longer be concealed. Mr. -Lloyd George admitted that since the beginning of the war, we had -increased a thousandfold our production of munitions, yet were still -far behind the Germans and far short of our needs; and at last, eleven -months after the outbreak of war, we began to organise, or at least to -ascertain, our resources. Again we loudly congratulated ourselves on -our energy. We cried shame on all critics and pessimists and people -who wanted more. We fancied ourselves in the character of Atlas, -taking the whole burden on our massive shoulders, to spare our weaker -Allies. But the sinister light which this late increase of output -threw on the first six months, or more, of indolent incompetence was -quite disregarded. We genially overlooked the fact that the delay of -our advance was costing us nearly a hundred millions a month. We -allowed less prominent affairs to be conducted with the same indolent -insufficiency. The most absurdly inadequate measures were taken to -control the prices of food and coal, and scarcely a thought was given -to the tremendous economic problem which will confront us when the war -is over, or to the means of recouping ourselves by a systematic -promotion of our oversea-trade. - -In a word, the magnificent organisation and ordered national devotion -of the German people make the conduct of England during the first year -of the war seem clumsy, lazy, and full of danger for the future. For -this the chief blame quite obviously falls on our statesmen. English -soldiers have at least been second to none in the field: English -artisans have, since the need was acknowledged, worked magnificently. -It is the directing brain that was sluggish and incompetent. The -magnitude of the sudden task does not excuse our rulers, nor does the -very large service that was actually done--which I do not for a moment -overlook--lessen the scandal. If a political machine does not know how -to enlarge itself in less than twelve months to meet a new and very -urgent task, especially a task that it ought to have foreseen, it is -unfit to control our national destiny. Our governmental system has -proved itself most dangerously and mischievously unfit to meet such a -national emergency, and this catastrophic experience may encourage the -reader to examine with patience the criticisms which I propose to pass -on it. - -Here again we submit to the tyranny of a largely obsolete tradition. -When the story of the development of human institutions can be written -with a detachment of which we are yet incapable, one of the strangest -pages will be that which tells of the evolution of Church and State. -From the early days when some exceptionally powerful warrior is raised -on his shield and saluted as chief or king, and when some weird -individual earns the repute of being able to control or propitiate the -mighty powers of the environing world, government and religion -steadily advance to a commanding position in the life of the people. -The two men of power, the king and the priest, must have -establishments in accord with their value to the tribe, and the palace -and the temple rise in spacious dignity above the mean cluster of -huts. Time after time the race turns to examine the tradition which -has been so deeply impressed on it, and kings and gods are cast from -their thrones; but new dynasties always arise. Of Rome, no less than -of Thebes or Nineveh, it is the monuments of kings and gods that -survive. Only a few centuries ago the European city consisted mainly -of two institutions: the palace and the cathedral. The bulk of the -citizens huddled in squalid fever-stricken houses beyond the fringe of -the estates of their secular and priestly rulers. - -The modern age, with its inconvenient questions and its bold speech, -arrives. Commerce develops, and the palace and cathedral disappear, in -the forest of soaring buildings. When the roofs of the new commerce -and the new commoner rise to a level with the roof of the palace or -the cathedral, when men are no longer overshadowed by the old powers, -the imagination is released. The divine right of kings goes in a fury -of revolutionary flame: kings must henceforth rule by human right and -answer at a human tribunal, which is more exacting and alert than the -old tribunal. Yet the power of the dead tradition is amazing. In England -men still bow reverently when the king addresses them as "my subjects" -and talks of "my empire": still crown every entertainment, spiritual -or gastronomic, with fervent aspirations which would lead an -ill-informed spectator to imagine that they regarded the king's health -as mystically connected with the health of the nation: still describe -bishops and the heads of families which have been sufficiently long -idle and wealthy as their "lords." - -These archæological survivals are, no doubt, innocuous, if -irritating. The more serious feature is that they help to make so many -people insensible of the miserable compromises we endure in our -reorganised State. They are part of that superabundant ash which -clogs and dulls the fire of the nation's life. The nineteenth -century, rightly and inevitably, adopted a democratic scheme of public -administration. It was seen that, if the king were not so close a -friend of the Almighty as had been supposed, there was no visible -reason why the destinies of the nation should be entrusted to his -judgment: which was, as a rule, not humanly impressive. Luckily, -certain nations had won the right to do a good deal of talking before -the king came to a decision, or the right to hold Parliaments, and -Europe generally adopted this model. The Parliament House now towered -upward in the city, and it did the real business of directing the -nation's affairs. The king became a kind of grand seal for the -measures enacted by Parliament. Some nations, the number of which is -increasing, regarded the seal as a costly and avoidable luxury, and -abolished it: some kept the king, with all his stately language and -pretty robes and sparkling jewellery, and abolished the "lords": -some kept the king and the lords, but deprived them of real power. The -English nation, which is famous for its common-sense, its audacity, -and its ability, belongs to the last group. It invented that -remarkable phrase, "self-government": which ingeniously preserves -the fiction that someone has a right to govern other people, yet -conciliates the modern spirit by intimating that the people really -govern their governors. - -Into the extraordinary confusion of forms and formulæ which has -resulted from this compromise it would be waste of time to enter. Does -it really matter that we allow our king to put on our coins a -flattering portrait of himself, with an intimation that he rules as -"by the grace of God"? He is quite conscious that he rules us--if -his melodramatic relation to us may be called ruling--on the -understanding that he never contradicts us. We are not now knocked on -the head, except by an intoxicated patriot, if we refuse to stand -while our neighbours chant their insincere incantation about his -health: we go, not to the Tower, but to the ordinary law-court, if we -mention his personal frailties; and the portentous seriousness with -which he takes his robes and his formulæ injures none, and amuses -many. No doubt, slovenly mental habits are always to be deplored, yet -these things are not in themselves important enough to be included in -a list of serious reforms. What we do need to examine critically is -this scheme of self-government by which we now manage our national -affairs: very badly, it appears. - -This political machinery is divided into two sections: municipal -government and national government. The former, from which every -element of "government" except the name has departed, need not be -considered at length. It consists of groups of citizens who are -understood to excel in public spirit and self-sacrifice, so that they -devote a large part of their time to the unpaid service of their -fellow-citizens. Every few years a man, of whom you had probably never -heard before, calls to implore you, with a quite painful humility and -courtesy, to allow him to discharge this self-denying function. The -next day another man, of whom also you had never heard before, calls -to inform you, in discreet language, that his rival is a spendthrift, -a rogue, or a fool; and that _he_ is the man to represent you with due -regard to economy and with absolute disinterestedness. You probably -refrain from voting for either, since you have not the abundant -leisure of a libel-court. Your streets will somehow get paved, and -your children schooled, and you will pay the bill. But you may -discover after a time that the air is thick with charges of -"jobbery," or that some local councillor has been promoted to the -higher and more lucrative political world on the ground of "many -years' experience of local administration." - -If you happen to live in the Metropolis, where the intelligence of the -nation is clotted, so to say, you find municipal life even more -complex than this. The eager rivals who solicit the honour of doing -your work for nothing are divided into bitterly hostile schools. Each -school spends hundreds of thousands of pounds in a periodical effort -to convince you that the other school is going to swindle you. Each -plasters the wall with repulsive typical portraits of its exponents, -and you see yourself depicted as a weak and amiable, but small-witted, -figure (or, perhaps, as a burly and very stupid-looking farmer), whose -pockets are being picked. Each produces a most exact statistical proof -that its opponents have actually picked your pockets, and that the -"reds" or "blues" are the only people with a really disinterested -desire to spend some hours every day in the gratuitous discharge of -public duties. They spend great sums of money every few years for the -purpose of securing this thankless burden and facing the vituperation -of their opponents. You seek illumination in the press, and you find, -in rival journals, a mass of contradictory statements and mutual -accusations of lying. However, the system is thoroughly British in -its encouragement of individual action and public spirit, and you -overtook all the direct and indirect corruption it fosters. - -What is a man to do? One can at least search very rigorously the -credentials and the public action of the man who "solicits your -vote," and encourage the appearance of really independent and -fine-spirited men and women. I have, naturally, described the broad -features and general abuses of the system, but there are, of course, -large numbers of men in it who are sincerely disinterested. In the -main, however, municipal politics is tainted and complicated by the -party-system of the large political world, and to this we may turn. - -That section of the political machine which controls national affairs -is obviously of the first importance. On its working rests the grave -issue of peace or war; to it is entrusted, in the last resort, the -great task of educating the nation; and through it alone can we secure -any of those numerous reforms which are to undo the tyranny of shams -and abolish so much avoidable misery and confusion. One ought -therefore to be gratified to see how large a place politics occupies -in the public mind, which is otherwise so little inclined to serious -matters, and in the public press, which so faithfully mirrors the -thought of the nation: to see how the prominent or eloquent politician -surpasses in public esteem the greatest artist or scientist, and even -rivals in popularity the prettiest actress of the hour: to see that -four-fifths of our public honours are reserved for politicians and -statesmen, and for those less gifted but more wealthy men who give -them practical support. Unhappily, when one looks closely into this -apotheosis of politics, one finds that its merit is merely -superficial: that a very large proportion of the more thoughtful -people in every civilised community look on politics with disdain, and -that some of the more independent of our politicians confess that one -must almost lay aside one's honesty and ideals on entering the -political world. - -A series of grave struggles and threats of civil war in the first half -of the nineteenth century inaugurated the present political phase in -Europe. It transpired after Waterloo that the English parliamentary -system, in which our statesmen took such pride, was a hollow and -corrupt sham. A comparatively few wealthy landowners controlled the -nation, and bought votes for their nominees. After some years of -agitation the working men of the great manufacturing centres formed -armies and threatened to force the doors of Westminster at the point -of the pike. This elicited a system of restricted, but real, popular -representation. Later enlargements of the franchise improved the -system, and to-day some six or seven million adult males elect our -legislators. Until recently this scheme was largely frustrated by the -power of a non-elected House to suppress any measure which did not -please a privileged minority, but this is now materially modified. Six -million free and adult representatives of the nation appoint and -control the men who make our laws, and direct the king how to act. - -But in practice this admirable theory becomes a mockery and an -illusion. It may be taken as a Euclidean postulate that out of six -million people of any civilised nation four or five millions will -be--shall we say?--somnolent: not from want of brain, but from want of -constant exercise of it. A very earnest idealist of the last century, -Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, proposed that, for the great efficiency of -our political machinery, every elector should, before he received a -vote, be compelled to pass an examination in political economy and -constitutional history. Since few Members of Parliament, to say -nothing of voters, would have passed the examination, the proposal was -rejected, and the education of the voter was left to the interested -political parties and to the press which supported them, or was -supported by them. The result was that two rival organisations, -roughly corresponding to the two attitudes of the modern mind toward -new ideas (progressive and conservative), gradually increased in -wealth and power until they were able to control the electorate and -exclude from representation every finer shade of political thought. -The machinery by which this is done does not leap to the eyes, as the -French say, and the average elector proudly contrasts our political -system with that of most other nations. - -Candidly, we may take some pride in the contrast. The struggles and -sacrifices of our fathers have won for us a system which is far -superior to that which has hitherto prevailed in Russia, to the -despotic medievalism of Prussia, to the grave insincerity of Spanish -political life, to the confusion and occasional corruption of French -or Italian politics, to the remarkable activity which precedes a -presidential election in the United States. Our political life is -relatively free from large corruption. I happened to be in New Zealand -when the "Marconi Scandal" was agitating England, and I remember -politicians of that progressive little land smiling at the word -"scandal" and hinting that they were more adventurous. Some of our -discontent is, no doubt, due to women writers who magnify the evil in -order to persuade us to enlist their refining influence. I do not, in -fact, think that Mr. Belloc and Mr. Cecil Chesterton have proved some -of the graver charges which they brought in their indictment of our -"servile State." It will need something more than a list of -matrimonial connections to persuade us that Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. -Winston Churchill were in the habit of meeting, amiably and -clandestinely, Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. F. E. Smith for the collusive -arrangement of our laws. - -Yet there is enough in the familiar criticisms of our political -machinery to justify one in saying that the political sham is, even -now, intolerable. What, candidly, is the procedure? A general election -is announced, and two men call, or send agents, to solicit the honour -of representing you in Parliament. In the district in which I write at -the moment one candidate is a wealthy and muddle-headed Liberal: the -other is a wealthy and (politically) equally muddle-headed -Conservative. Neither of them has the remotest idea of representing my -national wishes,--they would blush to be suspected of it,--and neither -has ever spoken in Parliament; so I have never yet voted. - -But I am an eccentric man. Let us take a normal case. You notice, as a -rule, that during the few years before the election a wealthy man has -been openly suffered, or directed from his party-headquarters, to -"nurse" the constituency. Hundreds will cast votes for him solely -because they fear a withdrawal of his subscriptions to their chapels -and football clubs, and of his open-handed philanthropy. As the -election approaches, another candidate appears. He also is, as a rule, -a wealthy man, and he spends between one and two thousand pounds in -disturbing the judgment and inflaming the emotions of the voters. -Pictorial posters, which might have adorned the walls of some Pyrenean -cavern in the Old Stone Age, are massed near the doors of some dark -"committee room" or spread over the town. The brain struggles -feebly with the contradictory statements of orators and journals. And -on the day of the election the two wealthy rivals for the honour of -printing M.P. on their cards, and the duty of voting as they are -directed by their superiors, flood the district, although it has an -excellent tram-service, with expensive cars and carriages, to take the -tired working man to the poll. - -Possibly one of the candidates is not a wealthy man, and you begin to -speculate on the source of his thousand pounds, or even three hundred -pounds. Very few voters do inquire, of course; most of them would be -surprised to know how much a man spends in soliciting the honour of -representing them--he has usually a great contempt for them--in -Parliament. The more inquisitive voter, however, would discover that -the poorer candidate is in a special sense the representative of a -particular party, and he would touch the fringe of a peculiar and -ingenious system. I happened one day to mention to a friend certain -advanced opinions of a Member of Parliament. "That," he said -grimly, "will interest my father-in-law; he finances Mr. ----." -Through the party-organisation this wealthy and highly respectable -manufacturer paid the election expenses and part of the -income--Members of Parliament had not then a salary--of candidates or -Members in various remote towns. The manufacturer, or the various -manufacturers who do this sort of thing, will eventually be knighted -or baronetted; their sons will have a chance of a secretaryship, or -even of Cabinet rank. The secretly subsidised Member will go to -Westminster, an automatic voter. In fact, since a candidate must -generally have the sanction of the central organisation of one or -other party before he can venture to solicit votes, even wealth does -not usually relieve him of the party-tyranny. - -What, then, is the party? It is not so much a creed as a wealthy and -powerful organisation. Once it was a group of men who happened to have -the same ideas. By a natural evolution of organisation--one sees the -same thing in the evolution of Churches--it has become rather a -machine for impressing those ideas on men. In a sense, it is an -oligarchy. We must remember such facts as the dismissal of Mr. -Balfour, and the powerlessness of Mr. Asquith to get rid of a certain -Minister whom he disliked. The power of the front-benchers is not -absolute. But on the whole the party is an aristocracy of wealthy men, -titled men, and able men, which rules the country for a term of years. -Its leading agents are the Ministers and Whips: the body of the party -is an association for carrying out its will, and for adding the -attractions of parochial entertainment and cheap club-life to the more -austere cult of ideas. Its revenue is, to a great extent, secret; but -the annual lists of honours reveal very plainly that it conducts an -unblushing traffic in such things. The reasons allied in the published -list are often too ludicrous for words. Privately one can often -ascertain the exact price. - -With this wealth the party-aristocracy controls the electoral campaign -and the elected Members. It has, further, at its disposal a large -number of highly paid positions, or functions which lead to highly -paid positions, or profitable little occasional jobs, or political -pensions, or a Civil List (which is grossly abused), and so on. These -it dangles before the eyes of impecunious or ambitious critics. Here -are two facts within my slender personal knowledge of these matters. A -very influential Socialist (my informant) was invited to a small -dinner of the party-aristocrats and diplomatically informed that he -might be useful in office: another drastic critic was assured by a -Cabinet Minister, through a mutual friend (my informant), that nothing -would be done for him until he ceased to criticise. - -The system is, on both sides of the House, corrupt, demoralising, and -intensely prejudicial to the interests of the country. We found its -danger during the South African War, and we perceive it far more -plainly to-day. What ought to be the brightest intellectual fire in -the land is sluggish, choked with ash, served often with inferior -material. The permanent departments of State which depend on it are -correspondingly sluggish. In an emergency it--after a humiliating -trial of its own ability--turns to business-men. Its whole tradition -and procedure are abominable. Men who are poor and independent may -bruise their shins on the doors in vain. Men of no ability are -promoted, even to peerages and the Cabinet, because their fathers -contributed much to the party's purse or prestige, and they -themselves will at least be loyal. Men who raise critical voices in -the House are snubbed and suppressed: men who criticise outside are -safely ignored. The ablest and the most sincere men in the party--men -like Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Lloyd George--acquiesce in all this. - -The electoral system and the procedure of the House of Commons are -designed to protect this monstrous scheme. The large fee which is -exacted of candidates and the very large sums which wealthy men are -allowed to spend on elections intimidate able and independent, but -impecunious, men. The election is spread over a week or two in order -to give wealthy men, who may be relied upon to support the -constitutional parties, an opportunity of voting in several -constituencies, and in order that Ministers may give more aid to their -weaker supporters. For the polling-day Saturday is avoided as much as -possible, because on that day a larger percentage of the workers would -vote, and they are apt to vote against the constitutional parties. -Cars and carriages are permitted because the candidates of the workers -will easily be surpassed in this well-known advantage by candidates of -the great parties. Minorities are hopelessly excluded from -representation, such as they would have under a system of proportional -representation, because they would send to the House a number of -independent Members who would disturb all the calculations of the Whip -and all the tricks of party-government. Under a system of proportional -representation it would be quite easy for some scores of able and -earnest men to secure election at very small cost, by merely -circulating declarations of their views; but this, or a grave increase -of the Labour Members, would wreck the party-system, and therefore the -most democratic of our orthodox politicians maintain all the abuses -and injustices of our system. - -The division of constituencies is further designed to protect this -iniquitous and corrupt scheme. Universities, the City of London, and -boroughs like Durham, Bury St. Edmunds, and Montgomery--each of which -has a population of less than 17,000 souls--have an equal right to one -unit of representation in Parliament with Wandsworth, the Romford -division of Essex, or the Harrow division of Middlesex, each of which -has more than a quarter of a million inhabitants. Eighty-three -constituencies, most of them having a large proportion of the more -intelligent workers, have a population of more than 100,000 each: -forty-four constituencies have a population of less than 40,000 each. -In other words, half the people of England and Wales elect 167 Members -of Parliament: the other, and notoriously less intelligent half, elect -323 Members of Parliament. - -From Gladstone downwards even our most "democratic" statesmen have -acquiesced in these enormities of our electoral system; and they have -meantime expended much eloquence on the injustice of the Prussian -system, and have expressed ardent hopes for the emancipation of the -people of Italy, or Bulgaria, or Persia, or some other remote land. -Yet these features of our electoral scheme are retained solely in -order to protect the party-system: to keep in the hands of a group, -which is largely hereditary and is at all events a small and jealous -caste, all the prestige and emoluments of the higher positions. Even -the grave peril of a national catastrophe, owing to this restriction -of power and responsibility to a group of moderate talent, does not -shake their tradition. We shall, when this war is over, see them -resist reform as energetically as ever. - -Within the House of Commons itself a mass of old rules and customs are -maintained for the same purpose. The hours of work are still arranged -on the old supposition, that a Member of Parliament is a man who, with -great self-sacrifice, devotes a large part of his time gratuitously to -the service of his country. The most important work in the nation's -economy is relegated to the hours when every healthy man is disposed -to rest and recreate himself: indeed, the more important the issue at -stake, the more certain it is to be discussed during the worst working -hours out of the twenty-four. One has only to glance at our -legislators on their benches after dinner to realise the significance -of it. The majority of them are plainly reconciled to the theory that -the heads of the party have done the necessary work during the day: -_their_ business is to keep sufficiently awake to vote correctly. - -The arrangement of business is not less iniquitous. The Ministry -decides that certain measures of reform are needed, either in the -interest of the people or in their own interest, and, since they have -an assured majority of "Ayes," the lengthy debate is almost -superfluous. The passing of the measure has been secured in advance, -or it would not be put forward. The rare event of miscalculation, and -the still rarer event of independent action, need not be regarded. No -Member is, even in these cases, influenced by the long and tiring -speeches which are made about the matter. At one time the debates had -a certain elocutionary elegance, at least; now they represent an -unattractive sham-fight, and abuse is being increasingly substituted -for rhetoric. The most paltry trickery is employed on both sides, -because every man is aware that his speech is really addressed to his -followers outside the House, and he must, _in_ the House, rely on -quite other devices than eloquence. Yet all this pseudo-gravity is -lightened occasionally by sittings in which some measure of the -greatest importance, but not introduced by the Government, is treated -as flippantly as it would be in a humorous debate during a long -sea-voyage. - -If a man is instructed by his constituents to represent in the House -some special need of theirs, or some public reform which has millions -to support it, he finds that "the rules of the House," or the -rules of the oligarchy, will not allow him to introduce it. A very -small fraction of the time of the House is granted for the discussion -of such proposals; but the debate is farcical, and is often looked -forward to in advance as such, because everybody knows what will be -the issue, even if a majority of the House really favours the -proposal. Measures of grave social importance, like women-suffrage, -have been arbitrarily crushed by the oligarchs for thirty years,--as -early as 1886 women-suffrage had 343 supporters on the benches,--and -this tyranny and injustice of a few ministers have led to the most -violent and bitter recrimination. - -This is the political machinery to which we entrust the most dedicate -and momentous issues of our national life, and to which we have to -look for the realisation of our most treasured hopes of reform. The -impartial critic will not question that there are men in the political -world as eager for reform as he, or that during the last half-century -some excellent social legislation has been passed. These measures are, -however, due in great part to a studied endeavour to retain or gain -support in the country,--the Insurance Act, for instance,--and many of -them--relating to the sale of cigarettes, to the admission of children -into public-houses, to the flogging of procurers--are small -sentimental reforms which occupy time that could be better employed. -We think that we open a new epoch of civilisation when we give a very -small pension to a very aged worker, but the problem of the roots of -poverty or the abolition of warfare does not enter the party-programme. -Our bishops enthuse over their success in inducing a complaisant Home -Secretary to lay the lash on the backs of a sordid little group of -criminals, and even offer to roll up their own lawn sleeves for the -job; but they are indifferent, or hostile, when other people would -induce our Ministers to amend those brutalities of our marriage-laws -which tend to foster prostitution. - -This political machine must be radically and comprehensively reformed -before it can be a fit instrument for the reform of the nation. All -the pyrotechnic distractions and gross irregularities of an election -must be suppressed: all plural voting must be abolished: the comedy of -cars for feeble voters must be forbidden: all indirect bribery, either -of voters or candidates, must be rigorously punished. Candidates must -put a simple and sober statement of their views and proposals before -the electorate, and no further expense should be permitted. Some -system of proportional representation and secondary elections should -ensure that large minorities would not be entirely without -representation. The election should be confined to one day, preferably -a Sunday, and stripped of all melodramatic nonsense and occasion for -corruption. - -The party-system will, no doubt, long survive in English political -life. Within twenty years or so the word "Conservative" will, as -in other countries, pass out of use, and the Conservative elements -will unite under the banner of "Liberalism," in opposition to -"Labour." It is, of course, the dread of this issue which at -present unites the constitutional parties in opposing reform. One can, -by studying advancing countries, even foresee a next phase. The -Conservative elements will unite in a "Labour" party against the -Socialists; and in the dim future we may, like Anatole France, foresee -a Socialist commonwealth established and an Anarchist party furiously -assailing it. - -But, though the party-system be retained (very much modified by -proportional representation), this disgusting sale of honours and -offices, this oligarchic tyranny over the House and the -constituencies, will not survive. Reform of the electoral procedure -will enable a large group of independent men--independent of the large -parties--to enter Parliament, and the removal of the Irish and other -Members, who concentrate on a single issue and are willing to traffic -on other issues, will reduce the old majorities. I do not doubt that -fresh complications will arise. The weakness of proportional -representation is that it will certainly lead to a number of sectarian -groups. "We Catholics" will, of course, return Catholic Members, -ready to sell their votes on various issues in the interest of the -sect; and the Baptists and Methodists, and so on, will be tempted to -retort. We shall have a teetotal group, and a Puritan group, and an -anti-wallpaper group, etc. We must hope that the sterner education of -the electorate will secure that these trivialities do not endanger -grave national interests. The dissolution of the old Conservative -party will leave the Liberal party unable to defend its abuses; it -will have no opportunity of collusion or retaliation. So we may have -in time a political machine--a body of men, appointing their own -leaders, soberly chosen by each 100,000 of the population, regarding -Parliament as a grave national council, not a theatre for the display, -of wit and rhetoric--which will effectively carry out the will of an -advancing people and enlist the interest of the most thoughtful. - -I am in all this assuming that sex-barriers and privileges will be -entirely abolished, but I prefer to discuss the position of woman in -its entirety in a later chapter. It must be explained, however, that -in taking 100,000 as a unit of representation, I am contemplating an -electorate of thirteen or fourteen million voters. Something between a -hundred and two hundred Members of Parliament are surely sufficient, -and would make a much more practical and alert body than our present -stuffy, sleepy, and overcrowded House. - -It seems very doubtful if a Second Chamber, in any form, is a real -social need. A House of "Lords" is, of course, an insufferable -anomaly and medieval survival. It is amazing that this hereditary -transmission of titles--and such titles!--and wealth has so long -survived the stinging raillery that men like Thackeray poured on it -long ago: it is still more amazing when we measure the intelligence -and public spirit of our "lords." Even if we weed out the less -intelligent, or those whose interest in horses or actresses or -theology is more conspicuous than their interest in the nation's -affairs, it is preposterous that such a body should retain the least -control of a properly elected House of Commons. We may trust that -before many decades all hereditary titles will be abolished, and this -will demolish at once the name and the more offensive part of the -character of the Second House. The idea that because one had a -distinguished or fortunate or unscrupulous ancestor, or one has large -estates or an American wife, one is fitted to control our legislators, -is too ludicrous for discussion. It is sometimes pleaded that they -"have a large stake in the country." One may surely reply, not -only that they would do well to have their large stake more ably -represented, but that poverty has an even greater and more pressing -right to representation. - -As to the bishops, it is still more difficult to discover why they are -allowed to control secular legislation. They have been chosen for -certain doctrinal and administrative functions, partly because of -their ability to discharge those functions, partly because they had a -convenient income, and partly because they could command political or -domestic influence. But even the men who have earned a mitre because -they were admirably fitted to wear it, and could hold together a large -group of clergy with conflicting doctrinal ideas, are not obviously -qualified for the work of legislation. Their record in the legislative -assembly is deplorable. They have for ages blessed our militarist and -bellicose traditions. They have, in their own interest, resisted -nearly every important social reform until recent years, and even now -they display a keen social sense only when there is question of -flogging a few score of perverts, or something of that kind. They have -no place in a modern political system, and their presence in it is an -anachronistic reminder of the time when they monopolised education. - -Another element of our Second Chamber consists of men who have been -promoted from the First Chamber, generally in order to watch the -interest of their party, or made peers for public service or service -to the party. The various creatures of the party are one of the abuses -we have to correct. Even the others are of questionable value. Is Lord -Morley more judicious, or more alive to the highest interests of the -nation and the race, than the Right Honourable John Morley was? Does -age give wisdom to Lord Gladstone, or did it enhance that of Lord -Roberts? Is it not a fact that nine men out of ten adopt a sluggish -and reluctant attitude in age, and are unfitted to deal with the -proposals of middle-aged men? There is, at all events, occasion for -very careful discrimination, whereas our present practice is to -reward, indiscriminately, a supposed merit or a service rendered to -the party with a seat in the "Upper" House. - -The third class of peers calls for the same observation. Success in -manufacture or finance or law, or a willingness to give large sums to -the party-funds, is not an obvious qualification for controlling -legislation. While these men are in the prime of their vigour and -judgment the nation dispenses entirely with their services. We invite -their co-operation in the national business when they are understood -to be too old and inelastic to attend any longer to their less -important commercial concerns. It is, in fact, impossible to frame a -really impressive plea for a Second Chamber of any description. I -venture to say that if an historical inquiry were made into the -services rendered by Second Chambers since the beginning of the -parliamentary system, it would be found that they have rendered little -or no real service, while they have obstructed the work of reform in -every land. Their record--the first thing we ought to consult--condemns -them emphatically. If the Members of a Second Chamber are not elected -by the people, they invariably consult class-interests: if they are -elected, they, as one sees in Australia, are superfluous. - -This political system is completed by the royal assent to Bills and -the royal power to choose Ministers. The former is now an idle form: -the latter is an intolerable abuse. If the people are self-governed, -the leading agents in the Government are Ministers of the people, not -of the king. The Members of Parliament ought to choose the Ministers. -Kingship is a medieval survival, and it is inconsistent with a clear -and practical conception of the nation's business to retain these -archaic forms and institutions. The trend of political evolution is -visibly from kingdoms to republics. A "monarch" in the twentieth -century is as anachronistic as a "lord"; an hereditary monarch is -an outrage of modern sentiments. Once more, we need to test the -institution by its historical merits or demerits. - -Many people seem to regard our Constitution much as certain lowly -tribes regard the mysterious stone which has dropped from heaven -amongst them. Some even of our politicians display a kind of -fetishistic terror if a measure is projected that seems to them to -infringe or enlarge our Constitution. They brandish their spears -before the idol and talk of shedding their blood in its defence. They -are at times "Balliol Scholars," or something of that kind, yet -one would suppose that they were quite unaware how our Constitution -arose, and what plain and indisputable right we have to revise and -improve it. It is a sort of ancient mansion to which a modern owner -has added billiard-rooms and workshops and a garage. But it has -assuredly not the æsthetic charm of a medieval building, and this age -of ours needs to reconsider, if not reconstruct, it. It will be a fine -day for England when we have a Royal Commission sitting in judgment on -our Constitution: calmly discussing, amongst other matters, the -expediency of asking the throne to retire on half-pay, and all its -parasites to retire on no pay. - -I have already described the changes which are likely to occur in that -large political structure, the Empire. The various regions of the -earth which constitute it cling together on the understanding that we -are quite insincere when we talk of them as our "possessions." It -is a federation of free nations, bound together by thinning ties of -blood and by the advantage of a collective defence. When the military -system is abandoned there will merely be a somewhat faded and amiable -sentiment uniting the imperial fragments to each other more closely -than to their nearer neighbours. One may hope that they will remain -united, for a large empire is a good thing, if it has large ideals: it -is a university of civilisation. But unless we purge our -correspondence of archaic forms the "Colonies" may grow impatient. -The Colonial of the third generation, and often of the second, has -very little respect for England. Candid Australians would make some of -our Imperialists tremble with concern. Our colonial "governors," -of course, report that loyalty is undiminished, because a few hundred -families in Melbourne and Sydney press with undiminished snobbishness -to their garden-parties. These ornamental nonentities ought to be -withdrawn. Perfect sincerity in our relations with the Colonies will -do most to maintain the federation. The splendid co-operation of -Australia and Canada in the war has shown that we have little to fear. - -India and Egypt form a special problem, complicated by the fact that, -in their condition of dependence, they are large and nutritious fields -for the employment of our sons. It would, however, be foolish to -ignore the great change that is taking place in them. Hindus tell me -that, when Lord Morley became Secretary of State, the advanced -Nationalists sent him a private message to the effect that they would -co-operate with a humanitarian like him; and he snubbed them. A very -large proportion of them are beyond the stage of being impressed by -_durbars_, and are impatient that the masses should be kept in that -childlike state of mind. We set up a fictitious "Oriental -imagination," and try to make the Orientals live down to it. The -example of China and Japan ought to have destroyed our illusions about -"the East." The difference is one of culture, which may at any -time be changed. We shall have to deal more frankly and generously -with Egypt and India, or else cease to rail at Prussian or Russian -despotism. - -However, Imperialism is not a grave or pressing problem. The Empire -will run its destined evolutionary course. For us the grave matter is -the corruption which clogs our political machine and the perverse -tradition which prevents the multitude from seeing it. The awarding of -honours and lucrative positions should be withdrawn entirely from -politicians, because, even if we compelled them to publish accounts, -they would still add to their resources or prestige by this inveterate -traffic. The king might at least render us the service of purifying -this department of national life: perhaps have a list prepared by the -Privy Council and checked by independent inquiry. I remember how Sir -Leslie Stephen told me that he shrank from being added to the -inglorious list of mayors who had entertained princes or coal-owners -who had financed elections or built chapels. This would cut one of the -chief roots of our present political corruption, but we need to press -for a thorough education of the people. It must realise that the -political machine is dangerously clogged and sluggish: that its -"democratic" character is a sham: and that its energy is wasted on -measures which are insignificant in comparison with the mighty tasks -of education, pacification, and industrial organisation which it ought -to undertake. - - - CHAPTER V. - THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH - -IN the last sentence of the last chapter I spoke of education, -pacification, and industrial organisation as the three monumental -tasks of a reformed political system. If the supreme object of a -central administration--the sooner we cease to talk of "government" -the better--is to make a people healthy, prosperous, and happy, -these are surely the three reforms to which it will most resolutely -apply itself. I have spoken of the very grave and pressing -nature of one of these reforms: the need to abolish militarism and -war. Later chapters will deal with education, in the very broad and -rich meaning which I assign to the word. Here I would sketch the -problem which seems to me to weigh heavily on us in connection with -the distribution of wealth and the present disorganisation of -industry. - -It is useful sometimes to imagine ourselves in the year 3000 or so -looking back with critical eye on the twentieth century. One pictures -the future historian--some narrowly specialised expert on the social -life of the second decade of the twentieth century--discoursing on us. -A strange and interesting people, he will say. They boasted of their -intelligence, and they really did display a creditable measure of -intelligence in their research and their applied science. They -regarded themselves as far superior in humane sentiment to the Middle -Ages, to which they properly belong, and they put forward many -excellent vague proposals of social improvement. Yet it is not easy to -understand their slavery to ancient prejudices, sometimes of a quite -barbaric character. A superficial observer would say that the -contradiction was due to their unhappy practice of leaving the -majority of the community at a low level of culture, so that the -intelligent minority were checked by a slower-minded majority. But it -is a singular fact that some of the most intelligent men among the -minority, such as Mr. A. Balfour and Mr. F. E. Smith, held much the -same views as the agricultural workers, and made a kind of religion, -which they called Conservatism, of this obstinate retention of old -traditions. They seem, with all their pride in their culture, to have -mistaken their place in the evolution of the race. No people is -entitled to be called civilised which complacently tolerates war, -squalid and widespread poverty, dense areas of ignorance, political -corruption, and the many other remnants of barbarism which they -tolerated. The twentieth century was the last hour of barbarism, lit -by a few rays of the civilisation which dawned in the twenty-first -century. - -If the infliction of pain and misery is, as I believe, the worst form -of crime, this retention of war and poverty is the gravest of our -social transgressions. But the guilt of our generation in regard to -these two crimes is very unequal. The way to abolish war is clear, but -the remedy of this other open sore of our social organism, a poverty -which stunts and embitters the lives of millions in every large -civilisation, is not at all clear. The plain man who, oppressed by the -spectacle of this desolating, unchanging poverty, seeks a remedy in -social literature, is at once beset by a dozen rival theorists. The -Socialist, the Anarchist, the Eugenist, the Malthusian, the -Single-Taxer, and other austere thinkers press on him their -contradictory formulae and their mutual abuse; these in turn are -assailed contemptuously by men who are not less acquainted with -economic matters; and the older political parties observe, with a -sigh, that poverty seems to be an inherent evil of every industrial -order, and we can do no more than mitigate its hardships. To this last -position the plain man usually comes. - -Let us grant at once that the older political parties have done much -toward the alleviation of poverty. No one who is acquainted with the -condition of the workers a hundred years ago can hesitate to admit -this. Impatience is too rare a virtue, it is true, but this does not -dispense us from cultivating wisdom. A great deal has been won, and -generally won by the middle class, for the oppressed workers. Between -1830 and 1880, at least, thousands of middle-class men were working in -Europe for the advance and enlightenment of the workers. The old -doctrine of _laissez-faire_ has been forced to compromise with -decency. We have entirely abolished the horrible exploitation of cheap -child-labour which was common early in the nineteenth century. Our -Francis Places and Robert Owens have won for the worker the right to -form Trade Unions, and others the free education of his children. We -no longer permit the employer to fix the conditions and hours of -labour as he wills. The cotton-worker of Manchester, labouring twelve -or fourteen hours a day, and living in a squalid cellar, one hundred -years ago, would be amazed if he could visit the factories and homes -and places of amusement of his grandchildren. Even the poorer workers -are no longer left to God and the clergy; while the bulk of the -workers have numbers of cheap luxuries which would have seemed an -apocalyptic dream to the worker of Napoleon's day. - -But let us not imagine that we have got our axe into the roots of -poverty and are in a fair way to abolish it. This is one of the most -dangerous fallacies of our age; and against that comfortable assurance -I, knowing well all that has been done, plead that not one of our -reforms makes for the abolition or the material restriction of -poverty. We pension the very aged worker and the still more aged -widow: on the pauper scale. We build substantial, if rather cheerless, -homes for the destitute, and we put warm, if ignominious, clothing on -the back of the orphan. We appoint minimum wages, and permit maximum -prices. We have labour bureaux, and district visitors, and a Salvation -Army, and a Church Army. All of which means that we give a drink to -the crucified; it might be well to study if we can cease to crucify. - -The plain man or woman who earnestly wishes to help in the improvement -of life will inquire first, and most resolutely, what the actual range -and depth of poverty are; will study, secondly, how far our measures -of reform afford us any hope of curtailing it; and will, in the third -place, ask whether there is any other way of action which does offer -some hope of restricting, if not removing, the evil. - -In the mind of many people poverty means that somewhere in the darker -depths of our cities, happily remote from the shopping centres, there -are a number of people who, from lack of skill or excess of drink, -cannot find regular employment, and must live. ... One does not know -exactly how they live, but certainly on unpleasantly short and dry -rations. In earlier times one dropped a half-sovereign into the -poor-box at church for these creatures, if they would come to church -and learn resignation. To-day one subscribes to the Charity -Organisation Society or the Salvation Army, or joins one of the many -enterprising associations which are going to make the poor richer -without making the rich poorer. We have a social conscience. We -believe in _laissez-faire_, but, being humane, we will not push it to -extremes. At the same time, being sensible men, we are not going to -push humanitarianism to extremes. The phrase-maker is the great -benefactor. - -For a first acquaintance with poverty I would recommend a man to spend -a few hours, some Saturday evening, among those markets of the poor -which still line many of our more dingy thoroughfares. As the night -draws on, and the oil-lamps begin to flare and splutter over the -stalls, the grim courts and narrow streets of the district discharge -their grey streams of life upon the market. There is plenty of -laughter, you observe; there are plenty of round-faced matrons, with -clean, honest eyes and comfortable dress. "We ain't got much -money, but we do live," I heard one of them remark, in an interval -between bursts of raillery. The wives of regularly employed, and often -not ill-paid, workers are there, as well as poorer folk. But study -some of the quieter figures which move slowly among the throng or -linger enviously before the cheap shops. Notice the puny, shrivelled -infants, with quaint staring eyes, which, at the door of the -public-house, lie lightly in the arms of women whose faces are bloated -with drink and coarse food: the lean and ragged boys and girls, with -hollow and prematurely sharpened eyes, who hang about the -fruit-stalls, ready to dart upon the rotten castaways, or foster, in -darker spots, the premature sex-development which will drain their -scanty strength: the woman who, with drawn face, waits near the Red -Lion to see how many shillings her sodden brute of a husband will at -length hand her for a week's shopping: the weary old couple who have -seen better days, and now pass in silence through the babel of -vulgarity: the haggard-faced widow in mouldy black who hides her -paltry Sunday dinner in a worn bag: the eager eyes of the poorer -hawkers, which light up pathetically when a penny comes their way: the -men whose faces change at a drunken jibe into such faces as we have -seen behind the bars of a cage in a zoological garden, and the crowd -of men, women, and children rushing to enjoy the gratuitous spectacle -of a fight: the cheap, middle-aged prostitute, whose features are a -caricature of the features of woman. - -You may see these things in all parts of London--north, south, east, -and west--every Saturday evening, and many other evenings, all the -year round. You may see them in all the other large towns and cities -of Britain, and the cities of France and Germany and the United States -and all other "great civilisations." I have studied them on -Saturday nights in half the cities of Britain: in Amsterdam and -Brussels and Cologne, in Paris and Nice, in Venice and Rome and -Naples, in New York and Chicago: and in the light of our historical -research one sees their ancestors in all the great cities of all the -great civilisations that ever were. As it was in the beginning ... But -that refers to the glory of God. - -Follow to their homes these more pathetic figures of a London crowd. -You need not do so literally, for more observant and sympathetic -visitors have been there before you, and they told London long ago, as -far as London was willing to hear, how the majority of its citizens -live. Mr. Booth's book, _Life and Labour in London_, had better be -suppressed when its work is done, lest the men and women of a more -humane age learn too much about us; also Mr. Rowntree's book, which -shows this same fetid poverty lying at the feet of a superb minster, -the symbol of ages of ecclesiastical wealth and power; and many other -books. Let me summarise the relevant record of the natural history of -London. - -We may begin with the lowest depth, with life as it is lived in some -of the streets which still linger about Covent Garden, and in east and -west and south. We are beginning to see the grim humour of tolerating -the existence of these hotbeds of corruption under the very shadow of -our marble palaces of justice and our marble hotels for millionaires, -and we are destroying them; but the life remains still in sufficient -quantity to fill a large town. In tenements of this order fifteen -rooms out of twenty are indescribably filthy. Legions of bugs lurk by -day behind the faded rags of ancient wallpaper or in the crevices of -the unwashed floor, or even venture forth as securely as if they were -conscious of free citizenship in these places. The "windows" are a -rough mosaic of dirty glass and roughly plastered paper. The ceiling -is pale black, the floor filthy. A table, one or two dilapidated -chairs, a kind of bed--the "landlord" would, in most cases, not -raise two shillings on the lot--and an entire family of ragged, -vermin-eaten human beings fill this foul box, which is often only -eight or ten feet square. - -These people are thieves, cheap prostitutes, hawkers, porters, -charwomen, flower-sellers, ragmen--the most pitiful of the irregulars -which we suffer, age after age, to live and breed and die beyond the -extreme fringe of our industrial army. Sometimes they have nearly as -much food to eat as a workhouse-idler: generally not. Drink--the vile -mixtures of the cheaper public-house--they have more constantly; and -their children are not in their teens before they are familiar with -all the vice and crime and brutality which seven out of ten of these -rooms breed as naturally as they breed lice or bugs. In winter the -doors and windows are sealed, and men, women, and children huddle -together or, at times, crouch over a few lighted sticks. And year by -year, century by century, babies are ushered into this underworld in -edifying abundance, to live its ghastly life until the yellow frame -and dull brain are worn out. - -Shocking, you will say, but happily rare. Do you know that, according -to the best authorities, 50,000 men, women, and children in London -alone live in this atmosphere of squalor and brutality and chronic -hunger? - -Let us pass to the next higher circle of the modern Inferno--the -category of casual or very badly paid labour and chronic poverty, the -makers of your cheap furniture and clothes and brushes, your -match-boxes and chocolate-boxes, the hawkers and costers and regular -porters and dockers. Now there are generally two rooms to each family, -but the vermin still thrive in more than half of them, and the rooms -are filthy, and the children breathe an air that is foul with drink -and cursing and the most open and gross sexuality: not now in fifteen -cases out of twenty, it is true, but in ten cases out of twenty. Food -is habitually insufficient, for labour is uncertain, and profit is -infinitesimal; and, as a man _must_ drink, there are constant -disturbances to break the monotony and help one to forget the -customary hunger. You may have at times noticed the dejected hawker -returning, on a wet summer's day, with his tomatoes unsold: or the -children eager to collect fragments of the lids of orange-boxes in the -winter. Countess Russell told me that she once visited, unexpectedly, -a group of homes of this class, within a few minutes' walk of Gordon -Square, in the depth of winter. Hardly any had the material for a -fire, and few had food in the house. So they live, year in, year out; -and all that we propose to do is to give them five shillings a week -each if they will sustain the burden honestly for six decades, or -house and feed them in jail if they do not succeed in curbing their -criminal impulses. - -Once, in the Westminster Court, I saw a young and humane judge hand -certain tickets to the jury, when they had established the guilt of -two petty criminals of this class. "These, gentlemen," he said, -"are permits to inspect the jail; go some day and see the place to -which you send criminals." A very wise and benevolent innovation, -but we still await the judge who will send the jury to inspect the -homes in which these men conceive crime. - -About 400,000 citizens of the greatest city in the world belong to -this class. If 400,000 do not constitute a sufficiently important -problem, let us see the homes of the next category. These are the -irregularly employed and badly paid, though not the worst paid, -workers: costers, labourers, dockers, etc. There are about a million -of them in London alone. They know quite well what hunger is: for -weeks together, sometimes, the wage does not suffice to buy that -minimum quantity of nitrogen and carbon which men of science have -declared to be necessary, and the money is ill expended. They know -what cold is, for many a hard spell of winter finds them in want. They -have two or three rooms to each family, but, as a rule, not much of -that "Christian reticence" on which our clergy congratulate us. - -To the great majority of these million and a half of London's poor, -sexual pleasure is the one cheap luxury; and we encourage them to -breed industriously. My wife, with other ladies and gentlemen, -addresses them on the subject from the tail of a cart in South London, -and teaches the heavy-burdened mothers how to avoid having so many -children; and the leader of this little group was sourly and -menacingly (and quite falsely) told by a distinguished Churchman, -sitting in a Royal Commission, that they were breaking the law of the -land. A friend of mine has been hounded out of the United States by -the police for attempting to give similar information to the poorer -mothers of New York. - -Even in this third and very large category of London homes there is -much filth; and the windows, across which is drawn an odd cloth or a -ragged and dirty curtain, abound in broken panes. They have periods of -comparative plenty, when the children get boots and socks, and their -elders soak in beer and may even venture to a cinematograph show, if -the crude pictures on its garish façade promise a sufficiently silly -or sufficiently bloody programme. All that the police and the clergy -care about is that not more than an inch or two of underclothing are -exhibited in these places. They have also periods of want, when the -clothes go to the pawnshop, and life runs on the exasperating, -brutalising lines of the lower class. The daily round of life is -itself stupefying. At five or six they are dragged out of an -insufficient sleep, and they dully take their tea (of a kind) and -bread and margarine on a dirty table. After ten or twelve hours of -anxious quest of minute profits they return home for a slightly better -meal--a kipper, perhaps, or a few bits of cheap meat--too tired in -mind and body to do more than smoke and drink. They have plenty of -fun, of a sort, and take their tragedies lightly; but the angels, if -there are any, must fold their wings over their faces at the aspect of -these fellow-immortals. Even a politician might be expected to blush -for this self-governing democracy. It is a squalid, degrading, -stupefying life, below the level of civilisation. - -Nearly one-third of the citizens of London do not rise above this -level. The three classes that I have described, or the mass of people -who spread continuously over these classes, were found by Mr. Booth to -number 1,300,000 of the four and a half million inhabitants of the -city. The figure for the Greater London of to-day is, of course, -immensely higher. "The submerged tenth" is a most unfortunate -phrase. It leads many, who know little of these matters, to suppose -that only a tenth of the inhabitants of London are very poor. The -truth is that a tenth live in a condition of misery, filth, and -degradation of which the ordinary decent citizen can form no -conception. They are the shirkers, the abnormal, and the worst casual -workers. But the life of this further million--or nearly one-fourth of -the total inhabitants of the Metropolis--the irregular or badly paid -workers, is a grave and accusing problem to every man of decent -sentiment. Their condition is not consistent with civilisation. -Certainly large numbers of them live clean and cheerful lives, but -even in these cases it is scandalous that sober and willing toil -should receive wage enough only to secure cleanliness and the -necessaries of life; while a far larger number sink under the burden, -and are dirty, intemperate, gross, and improvident. - -Conceive the extension of this class all over Britain: the further -vast contingents of this army of poverty in the slums of Glasgow and -Liverpool and Manchester, in all our great manufacturing and shipping -towns, even in the heart of pretty rural England, where the wretched -wage and low standard and large family stunt and degrade our -agricultural worker. It is a very serious error to imagine that this -is merely an unhappy issue of the crowding in our great cities. In -picturesque and highly respectable York Mr. Rowntree found that thirty -per cent. of the citizens lived in very real poverty: that ten per -cent. did not earn money enough to buy a normal and sufficient -quantity of plain food, to say nothing of luxuries. - -This is the problem of poverty. If you want it in figures, a fourth of -the inhabitants of London, where rents are appalling, live on from -eighteen to twenty-one shillings weekly per family, and some hundreds -of thousands live on less than this. One might with some profit and -pertinence go on to inquire into the life of the half of the -population of London who are described as "comfortable workers." -Whether the little luxuries they have are a fit reward for the hard -work they usually do, whether there can be any development of -distinctively human powers among them, whether we may cherish a -feeling of entire security in basing our political system on that -foundation, are questions worth putting; and some day they will put -them to us. But it is better for the moment to confine ourselves to -that pitiful fourth of the community which lives in degrading poverty -because it has only irregular or wretchedly paid employment. Is it an -exaggeration to suspect that this vast acreage of poverty will make -the future historian hesitate to class us as civilised? - -Our social structure is of the nature of a pyramid. At its apex, -glittering in the sun, calling forth our pride and praise, are culture -and wealth and power, and all the fine things they bring into -existence. At its base are the supporting stones, crushed into the -soil by the towering mass: the millions of stunted or brutalised -lives. I know both extremes of this social order, and I have felt, -hundreds of times, that if it is permanently to retain this pyramidal -form, the refined lives and great achievements of the few resting on -this broad base of squalid and undeveloped lives, civilisation is an -impossible dream. I have felt that, if men and women realised the full -meaning and range of poverty, they would suspend the progress of art -and science, of commerce and industry, for a hundred years, if need -were, in order to concentrate the best intelligence of the race upon -the search for the remedy of this vast disorder. And, if it be true, -as I think, that these people, once dead, are dead for ever, and that -the tradition of a hundredfold reward in heaven for their privations -on earth is an illusion with which pastors and masters have reconciled -them to their burdens, I would, if I could, send that assurance like a -trumpet-blast through the slums of the world and make this vast army -of the stricken summon us, the intelligent minority, to a tardy -judgment. - -I do not, as will appear later, advocate the equal distribution of -wealth. I do assuredly not plead that one who has wealth should give -it to the poor: to see it gather again, perhaps, in less worthy hands. -I add the contrast of wealth at this point only in order to make quite -sensible the darkness of the life of millions. One's first task is -to establish, with what faint power the pen has, the appalling -magnitude of the evil. If any very large number of us did really grasp -the human significance of these facts and figures, the industrial -problem would not long be resigned, as it is, to bloodless economists -and obscure propagandist bodies. - -And the second aim of those who would see the world bettered is, as I -said, to inquire into the effect of the remedies we actually trust and -apply. Here we enter the mistier region of controversy, and I can but -set out the grounds of my sincere convictions. - -Of labour bureaux, in the first place, it will not be doubted that -they are an advantage to employed and employers. They are an advance -toward organisation. They bring the worker more promptly to the work -that awaits him. But they, obviously, do not add one iota to the -insufficient work, for which myriads are struggling: they do not add -one penny to the wage that is earned: and they are of little or no -service to the poorest workers, who chiefly concern us. - -Old age pensions and insurance and free education are, similarly, -great advantages to the workers, in which we may justly take some -pride, but they do not promise to abolish or greatly diminish poverty. -The pension, or the insurance benefit, is necessarily granted on the -poverty scale, and is in some sense a recognition of it as one of the -permanent institutions of life; and the elementary instruction which -we give has raised the qualifications for work, as well as the -equipment, so that the proportion of unemployed, or ill-employed, is -little changed. Nor would it be entirely wrong to say that, in -relieving the poor man of the direct charge of education and -insurance, we have put the difference on his rent. - -Of our poor-law system, that lamentable compromise with a stupid old -tradition, it is difficult to speak with patience. The able-bodied -idlers of our workhouses and our countryside are a mockery of the -workers. The tramp, the professional idler in search of idleness, -maintained in his repulsive ways by an undiscriminating system of -poorhousing and by a large body of "charitable" women, is one of -the quaintest survivals of an older order. His father idled through -life before him, and he in turn drags along the road a mate and -children who will sustain the ignoble tradition. He ought to be -washed, clothed, and put on an industrial estate; and, if his disease -prove incurable, he ought to be anæthetised out of existence, or at -least prevented from reproducing his like. - -Then there are the emigration societies. One fears that in large part -they transport to the colonies either the men whom the colonies do not -want, the men who will enlarge the slum-area of colonial cities, or -the men whom we ought not to spare. At the best, emigration is a means -of leaving the problem of poverty to our grandchildren, who will find -no more open spaces for the dumping of our human surplus. In point of -fact, however, apart from the dispatch of a small proportion of -specially prepared boys, emigration is not affecting our problem of -poverty. The half-million very poor of London, with the corresponding -hundreds of thousands in our other cities, do not make emigrants at -all; and very few of the next and far larger class are, or could be, -fit for agricultural deportation. - -Lastly of these devices which the less thoughtful are apt to regard as -relieving poverty, we have the Salvation Army, which is quite the most -preposterous social sham of our age. But its religious-social -burlesque, its pretentious concealment of bad results and loud -proclamation of good results, its refusal to print a plain -balance-sheet from which a social student can measure the definite -good done and the cost of it, its undercutting of existing work, and -so on, have been sufficiently exposed to excuse us from dwelling on -it. It contains some earnest men and women, and has had undoubted -successes, but the system is too nebulous, garrulous, and wasteful to -merit serious attention. - -Let us turn to graver matters. The mass of the workers, apart from the -more advanced bodies of Socialists and Syndicalists, believe that the -solution of the problem of poverty will be found in the development of -Trade Unions and of the political power of Labour. By political power, -with the aid of sympathetic members of the middle-class, they have won -the right of combination and a whole code of labour-laws; by an -increased political power, ultimately a political all-power, they will -secure all the legislation they deem expedient. - -In spite of the distraction of many of the workers by Anarchists and -Syndicalists, who despise political action, and in spite of the -restrictions of the franchise which are maintained by the older -political parties, it seems plain that at some not very remote date -the workers will control the world. Ever since the door of the -political world was opened to Demos, eighty years ago, he was certain -eventually to reach the throne, no matter how long he might be seduced -to tarry by the way. Those who think otherwise must put their trust in -the permanent unintelligence of the workers. The interests of the mass -of workers are so far identical that they must finally combine to -promote them. We are plainly moving, all over the world, in this -direction. In Australasia, where the virgin soil permitted an -exceptionally rapid growth, we see the farthest point yet reached, and -within a decade or so Labour will have unshakable power all over -Australia, at least. "Conservatism" has already disappeared, or -changed its name to "Liberalism." In Germany and France and -Belgium we see the same disposition of the rival parties to unite in -face of advancing Demos. In England there are signs that we shall at -no distant date see a similar redistribution of political forces, and -it is anticipated in the United States. In all countries the political -energies are slowly gathering about two poles: Liberal (including the -old Conservatives) and Labour. Even in such countries as Spain, -Russia, Turkey, Japan, and China the initial stages of the development -may be detected. When the workers at last unite and secure an absolute -majority-power, they will legislate on familiar lines. Wages will -rise, hours of labour will be shortened, and place will be found for -larger numbers of workers. - -It is little use moralising on this change. It is coming on like the -tide. There will, no doubt, be temporary abuses of power, as there -have always been, but the workers will learn the vital needs of an -industrial order, and they will not starve the roots of their new -prosperity. Let us assume that a state of equilibrium has been -reached: that the workers have paramount political power, and wages -are considerably increased. Does this promise a solution of the -problem of poverty? - -I am purposely leaving out of account the contemporary growth of rings -and trusts. Paradoxical as it may seem to say so, they are not an -essential element of the problem. The employers will (as is happening) -form unions in face of the men's unions, and the strain laid on -individual employers and small companies will favour the growth of -trusts. In so far as these make for economy, they are clearly useful; -but no doubt they will be tempted to use their monopoly to dictate -arbitrary prices. When, however, the workers have a majority-power, -they can either slay the trusts or draw their teeth. On the other -hand, a beneficent or labour-saving trust will not afford any -advantage to the less skilful workers, who make up the great army of -the poor, and it will reduce prices only by an unimportant fraction. -The chief significance of trusts is that they tend to annihilate the -individualist employer, who was once considered an indispensable -institution, and they may thus dispose obstinate admirers of the older -industrial order to welcome a radical change. They are more deadly to -the middle-class than to the working-class. - -The really vital question is whether the raising of wages and -reduction of hours, accompanied by a large amount of secondary -legislation to the advantage of the worker, will solve _the_ social -problem: which is not the problem of the existence of a few thousand -prostitutes, but the problem of the existence of, in every country, -several million people who live in privation and squalor, and cannot -develop human personalities. On this I offer two or three -observations. - -Does the price of commodities rise in proportion to the rise of wages? -If it does, the securing of a nominally higher wage is clearly a -delusion. This seems, however, to be our experience. In England, -during sixty or seventy years of trade-combination, wages have risen, -and hours and conditions of labour have been improved, to a remarkable -extent, in spite of open competition in an overcrowded market. But -prices and rents also have risen, and it is not clear that there has -been a net advantage to the worker. It is very difficult to answer the -question precisely, because other factors (such as the application of -science) have increased the productiveness of labour and have -cheapened certain commodities (books, clothes, pictures, tea, etc.). -The workers have shared these advantages, and are in a position of far -greater comfort than they were formerly. But in seriously testing the -claim and promise of the Trade Unionist and the Labour politician we -have to endeavour to subtract the improvement in the workers' -condition which is due to the application of science, and of better -methods, to production and distribution. When we make allowance for -this, it is certainly not clear that the rise of wages shows a margin -over the increased price of commodities: that, in other words, the -higher wage is a real advantage. - -It is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. When wages are -raised, who pays the increment in the cost of production? The employer -or the consumer? It is a familiar experience, and an inherent -necessity of our industrial order, that the consumer does; and the -consumer is the worker--the middle-class or wealthy consumer generally -gets the difference in other ways. It would be bold to say that our -employers have paid even a fraction of the increased wage out of their -own pockets. More usually they put a fifth of a penny on commodities -when the worker has secured a sixth. Competition alone restrains them, -and this is largely superseded by agreements. We have had innumerable -instances of this during the war. Class after class of workers claimed -a higher wage, and prices rose higher and higher "on account of the -increased cost of production." If a Labour Government were to -prevent employers from increasing the cost of commodities and raising -rents in exact proportion to the demand for higher wages--were, in -other words, to direct the employers to pay the increase of wage out -of their own profits--we should soon see the end of this industrial -order. The State would be compelled to become the employer. - -This seems to be true of practically all the legislation which a -political power of Labour could secure. Compensation, pennons, and -insurance are typical instances. The new demand on the employer's -profits is met in one of two ways: he withdraws voluntary -contributions to these or similar purposes, or he raises the price of -his goods. The larger consumer meets the burden by raising his rents -or fees. The unreflecting worker imagines that "the country" pays -for these things; he forms, in this respect, a larger proportion of -the country than he thinks. - -The second and more important consideration is that this power to -dictate wages and pass measures in favour of the workers does not hold -out a prospect of absorbing that surplusage of labour which is our -real problem. I am assuming that even the poorer and unskilled workers -will have their unions and their share of the political power. Their -wage will rise, and the price of their food and clothing and rooms -will rise; but it is of greater consequence to reflect that the less -competent workers on the fringe of the industrial army will receive -little advantage. Some benefit they will certainly have, since the -curtailment of hours and the slowing of the pace of production will -make room for more workers in each industry; though we must remember -that the pay of these new workers will either be taken from the older -workers, whose hours are shortened, or--which comes to the same -thing--will be put on the commodities. The total production will not -be increased, and the employer will not relinquish his profit. In any -case, even this method of finding room for more workers will affect -relatively few. - -Again I may quote the experience of Australia, where the workers have -very great power. In Melbourne, alone, in 1913, I found 30,000 men -unemployed; and there and in other cities the tainted area of poverty -and distress was increasing. All the elaborate organisation and -political power of the workers could not add to the sum of available -work and thus absorb the surplus of labour. I am contending that until -we do this we do not solve the poverty-problem. The chief cause of -this appalling social disease is the inequality of natural -endowment--either of muscle or nerve--in face of an unorganised system -of production. There is not work, with regular and decent wage, for -all. The weaker, the lazier, the more drunken, and the slower of -intellect, are crowded out of the ranks and driven to casual -employment. This is the tap-root of poverty, and the benefits secured -for those who are in regular employment will not affect it. - -Thirdly, this labour-legislation will not touch the second chief root -of poverty, the extreme inequality of the distribution of wealth. -Since wealth is, in this regard, a fixed quantity,--we are not -concerned here with the effect of fresh applications of science to -production,--an accumulation of commodities at one point leads to -thinness at another. I am not pleading for equality of income. Many -workers have an exaggerated idea of the gain they might have by an -equal distribution of wealth. The total annual income of the -population of the United Kingdom is now believed to be about -£2,400,000,000. If this were distributed equally amongst the heads of -our ten million families and our large army of unmarried workers, the -result would be barely £200 a year; and the equalisation of taxation, -the granting of substantial pensions, etc., would further reduce it. -There is, however, no serious need to discuss this idea. I see no -moral principle which forbids that we should reward a man according to -his productiveness or inventiveness or other value to the community, -although his fellows are not responsible for their lesser capacity; -and it is idle to speculate on some imaginary phase of human -development in which the more gifted and more useful will refuse to be -more richly rewarded than the less useful. - -But it does not follow that the community has no right to control the -distribution of wealth. At one time such a proposal would have been -branded "robbery." To-day even Conservatives do not threaten to -remove the death-duties and graduated income-tax by which we -confiscate some of the wealth of the more fortunate. The only question -is, to what _extent_ we may or ought to prevent the excessive -accumulation of wealth, or to disperse it after accumulation. - -There occur at once two methods of enrichment which invite careful -attention. One is the power to transmit wealth to one's descendants -in perpetuity, or until they choose to dissipate it. Most of us will -admit that in a social order at all resembling our own--and I do not -care to speculate about Utopian or imaginable orders--the power to win -advantages for one's children as well as for oneself is a sound -incentive to work. But the wish to relieve one's descendants of the -need to work, to make them for ever a burden on the community, is a -perverse ideal. It is one of those unsound primitive traditions which -we detect in the actual stream of our ideas and sentiments, and -instances are not unknown in our time of such holders of hereditary -wealth revolting against the tradition. When we realise that this -inherited wealth means, in plain terms, the right to have a hundred or -a thousand fellow-men working for us or our descendants in perpetuity, -for no merit or service on our part, and when we consider the folly -and waste which so commonly follow large inherited fortunes, we must -regard this tradition as evil and indefensible. One wonders how long -the working community is going to sustain this burden, and how long -refined men and women will imagine that they have a right to live like -Oriental potentates because they had a shrewd or a gifted ancestor. - -It is sometimes said in their favour that they employ labour with -their wealth. I have heard bishops give them this foolish consolation. -As if the wealth would cease to exist, and to employ labour, if it -were in the pockets of a thousand men, instead of the pockets of one -Duke of Norfolk or Duke of Westminster! The only difference would be -that this wealth, instead of paying a thousand servants and -tradespeople to work for the comfort of one family, would pay a -thousand men, who would lose nothing by the change of employment, to -produce comfort for a thousand families. Meantime, the Duke is -embarrassed by his wealth, or spends it on superfluous things, and the -thousand families live in vicious misery. Their babies die for lack of -good milk in the hot summer, and the rich youth or maiden--I have -known this done--carelessly takes a bath of milk. Let us understand -clearly this economic truth: great wealth is the accumulation in one -man's hands of the right or power of a thousand families to employ -labour. - -The second source of wealth which invites consideration is the -unearned increment on ground-values, or any other unearned and -accidental increase of value. It is now very commonly admitted that -this belongs to the community, and I need not enlarge on it. - -We have, as I said, admitted the community's right to interfere with -this scandalous clotting of wealth, and no doubt a Labour-majority -would increase death-duties until money could not be transmitted -beyond, at most, the third generation, and not in quantities -sufficient to make men and women a lifelong burden on the working -community. Possibly some day there will be a general scrutiny of -titles to wealth: not merely as far back as the enclosure of the -commons a hundred years ago, but back to the landing in this country -of William of Normandy. Possibly a day will come when men and women -will conceal the fact that their ancestors "came over with the -Conqueror," since it generally implies that the descendants of those -lucky adventurers have not done an honest day's work since that -time. Possibly the sons of some of our "captains of industry" of -a century ago will burn the family records, lest some prying historian -should learn by what horrible exploitation of child-labour the fortune -was made. Prescriptive right is a purely artificial right created by -the community, and it may be withdrawn by the community. - -Such measures as these a Labour Government will, no doubt, eventually -take, and they will do much to relieve poverty and increase the -production of commodities of general use. But they will add rather to -the comfort of workers who are already above the poverty-line, and -they will not prevent an excessive accumulation of wealth, though they -may finally disperse it. This means the continuance of deep poverty. -As long as a gifted man may amass a fortune in a comparatively short -time, without adding to the wealth of the community, there will be -squalid poverty somewhere. - -In sum, if the political ideal of Labour were fully realised, it would -not put an end to, and might not very materially lessen, our -widespread poverty. It would not enlarge the amount of available -productive employment, and so the weak in body or mind or character -would still form a pitiable army of slum-dwellers. It would, having no -more control of industry than the present Parliament has, be unable to -meet any grave disturbance of the industrial world, such as the -release of hundreds of thousands of workers by disarmament. It would -have no power to secure for the workers their full share of the -advantage of any new application of science, and it would be unable to -guide into new positions the men displaced by this application. We -should continue to suffer the disadvantage of an imperfectly organised -industrial system; each new enlistment of the great forces of nature -or of the cunning of science in the service of man would enrich a few -and impoverish many. In order to meet all these grave difficulties--in -order to do more than secure certain advantages for the better -equipped workers--a Labour Power would be forced radically to alter -its principle and undertake the organisation of employment. - -This organisation of industry seems to be the only device which will -gradually restrict, and finally abolish, poverty. The opposition to it -of middle-class workers and of so many artisans is unintelligible. It -is time that we ceased to confine the term "workers" to the poorer -and less cultivated caste among those who work: time that the lawyer -and actor and housewife claimed that honourable title no less than the -carpenter or navvy. In restricting the term to manual and badly paid -workers we have concealed from ourselves the real community of -interest of all who work. All of us, except those who live on the -labour of others, have an interest in the proper organisation of the -work of the world and the removal from our shoulders of this -intolerable burden of the irregular workers and the idlers. The -middle-class has an even greater interest than what is narrowly called -the working-class, because the tendency of Labour-legislation is, and -will increasingly be, to put the heavier charge, not on large -employers, who easily evade it, but on the middle-class generally. -Here again the war has luminously illustrated our position. Both -employers and employed (in the current industrial sense) have made -great profit by it: the middle-class generally has suffered severely. -A proper organisation of work would have prevented this. - -It can easily be shown that this national organisation of employment, -with graded incomes according to service rendered, is the only remedy -of poverty. The chief root of poverty is, as I said, the insufficiency -of properly paid work, and this is entirely due to the haphazard and -unsystematic nature of our industrial order. The private employer -looks only to the actual demand of commodities, or to the actual funds -for buying commodities. He has no interest in the moneyless -unemployed; indeed, he finds it a convenience to have a large number -from which he may select his workers. As a result, a large proportion -of our people are unable to demand their normal share of commodities -because they are not employed, or because they have no wage; and they -are not employed because they do not demand commodities. Plainly, the -community alone can alter this paradoxical state of things; and, since -the community is now compelled by its more humane sentiments to carry -the poor on its shoulders, it may at length be induced to see that it -would be better to set them on their own feet. In a properly organised -industrial system a worker will be paid by the commodities which he or -she actually produces, or their exchange-value. There can be no such -thing as a superfluous worker. It is only a lamentable issue of our -perverse pre-scientific system that millions must lack the food and -clothing and luxuries which they themselves could and would, under a -more orderly system, produce. - -This implies, of course, the transfer to the community, at a just -payment, of the land, the mines, and the means of transit, and the -gradual extension of municipal enterprise to productive and -distributive industries. I am contending only for principles, and -would refer the closer inquirer to such detailed constructive works as -those of Mr. H. G. Wells. It would be futile to construct a rigid -scheme of collectivist organisation. Such industries as the press, -literature, art, etc., present difficulties which it would be foolish -to override. But these affect comparatively few workers, and it is -pedantry of an unintelligent kind to wrangle over them while we have a -clear case in regard to other industries which involve many millions -of workers. We would do well, however, to remember that the -middle-class industries themselves are overcrowded and chaotic, and -that most members of that class would gain by organisation, wherever -it is possible. Instead of shrinking from it and inventing -difficulties, we ought to be eager to discover its possibilities. - -I ignore also certain more or less academic objections which have been -made against this proposal to organise employment. Mill's essay _On -Liberty_ is a monument of the futility of this kind of reasoning. Mill -was a civil servant, and, except in the case of the idle and criminal, -no restriction of individual liberty is proposed other than that which -Mill cheerfully endured. Middle-class men are apt to take fright at -the word "Socialism." It ought to be by this time generally known -that half a dozen very different theories pass under that name, and it -is particularly unintelligent to confuse the extreme and the moderate -proposals. Nearly the whole of the employment in any civilisation -could be organised without laying on any who are willing to work a -greater restraint than is laid on officials of the postal service. As -to "confiscation," it will be gathered from an earlier page that I -favour generous compensation to actual holders of land or mines, but -no perpetual pensions. - -I do not anticipate from this change all the advantages which some -Socialist writers expect. Their schemes of high universal prosperity -seem to me to have an absurdly slender basis of actual work. Mr. -William Morris conjectured that if all of us were to work for four -hours a day there would be enough produced for all of us to live in -luxury; whereas Mr. Sidney Webb calculates that it would need six -hours' work a day, on the part of all, to produce the necessaries of -life. It is true that a very large body of middlemen, commercial -travellers, footmen and other servants, and duplicate workers in rival -industries would be set free for sound productive or distributive or -professional work; but the easing of the hours of our actual workers, -the removal of the young from the market, and other collateral -improvements, must be taken into account. If we take one hour a day -from the actual workers in our heavier industries, we absorb at once -more than a million new men without increasing production. In any -case, it is lamentable to dangle before the eyes of men the ideal of -working only four hours a day. We want more of Browning's gospel of -work with cheerfulness. No doubt the idea is that, if the hours of -labour are reduced, the leisure will be employed in reading Bergson -and mastering Brahms. This optimistic theory seems to be at variance -with our experience. Improvement of financial position more usually -means the substitution of Bass or Dewar for cheap ale, and of stalls -for the gallery at the variety theatre. A later chapter will, however, -discuss our interests in this connection. - -The fact remains that collectivism is the only remedy of poverty. The -redistribution of wealth, or the prevention of excessive wealth, -would, in my view, add comparatively little to the wages of the -millions; and we must not put to the credit of an economic scheme the -profit of such changes as disarmament. It is not this, but the note of -efficiency, organisation, and economy which appeals to me in the -Socialist ideal. It would abolish a vast amount of duplicate and -unnecessary work, and it would conduct to their proper place in the -industrial order the large army of casual workers. London or New York -is a colossal monument of industrial inefficiency. Our chaotic mass of -duplicate and triplicate rival grocers, bakers, butchers, etc., our -rival railways and other purveyors and producers, with their separate -staffs and their appalling waste in advertisement, are a reproach to -our intelligence. We want an orderly and economical system both of -production and distribution, and only the municipality (or else a vast -and tyrannical trust) can conduct it. Most of all we want a power that -will sweep the myriads of costers, hawkers, newspaper-youths, -flower-girls, casual porters, loafers, musicians, etc., off our -streets, and put them to productive work. We want a great curtailment -of certain luxury-industries and fictitious industries. This would -give us an immensely increased volume of productive work, and a great -saving in distribution. The middle-class has not less to gain than the -workers by such a scheme of organising our resources, and it offers us -the only confident prospect of abolishing poverty and crime and -gradually uplifting the mass of the people. - -Naturally, we should for a long time have to deal with a great deal of -refractory material. Idleness and crime are diseases, and they ought -to be treated by the methods of modern medicine: scientific, humane, -sometimes surgical. Certainly we would exercise "tyranny" in -dealing with these. Probably in a properly ordered society all -citizens would be enrolled in an industrial register. The -hyper-sensitive would have the same guarantee of privacy as under our -income-tax system, and the police would have a most effective means of -locating the criminal. Any who were permanently refractory, or showed -an incurable disposition to revert to crime or to the vagrant -industries which disgrace our cities to-day, would have no moral right -to burden us with their existence. The community would offer work and -sufficient wage to all. The rest might disappear into segregated -"homes of idleness," or, if we are as wise as we ought to be, into -lethal chambers. - -This incurably refractory group would, however, probably prove smaller -than many believe. We are at present a little too much inclined to -consult scientific theorists about heredity (which is still very -obscure in science) and too little inclined to make social -experiments. I am assuming that a dozen other reforms would proceed -simultaneously with the reform of industry. Education would no longer -confine itself to giving an elementary literacy to children, without -any further care what use they make of their literacy; it would, as I -will suggest later, seriously concern itself with the adult -population. A bolder treatment of the housing question would stimulate -those who have evil traditions; we should not confine ourselves to -building clean rooms for them, which they might make filthy if they -wished. Prudential restriction of the birth-rate would be impressed on -the poorer class, with great benefit to themselves and their children -and the State. Eugenic proposals might be practically formulated and -encouraged. We should not expect industrial betterment to have some -mystic or magical effect of itself in uplifting the mass of the -people; but, until this betterment occurs, other efforts to help them -will be seriously hampered or entirely futile. The very magnitude of -the task would prove a magnificent tonic and stimulation to the jaded -mind of the community. - -An increasing number of middle-class men and women now recognise that -this is, not merely the only solution of the problem of poverty, but -the most profitable scheme of national life for all who are willing to -work. So detached an observer as Mr. Carveth Read, professor of -Philosophy at London University, observes that "probably the future -lies either with Co-operation or with Socialism" (_Natural and -Social Morals_, p. 211). On the Continent, especially in Italy, -France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and Russia, there is a -high proportion of cultivated and professional men in the Socialist -movement. No one need fear its advance except the idler and the man -whose work does not add to the wealth of the community or facilitate -its distribution. It is the application of sound and tried -business-principles to national life; and, when those principles have -first been applied to the governmental machine, and made it an -effective and disinterested administration, we shall move more quickly -toward the Collectivist ideal. - -Some may wonder that a student of science should come to this -conclusion. There is a vague idea abroad that an individualist -struggle for existence and survival of the fittest is the supreme and -unalterable law of life. This idea, though encouraged by men like Mr. -Kidd, is due to a merely superficial acquaintance with biology. In -past ages nature has certainly evolved higher types mainly by a bloody -struggle of individuals or a very calamitous pressure of environment. -_In the past_: there is the limit of the teaching of biology. A new -thing--human intelligence--has now entered the life of the earth, and -it has in countless ways superseded the laws (that is to say, -practices) of unconscious nature. The human mind is now a part of -nature, and therefore "natural selection" is a wholly different -matter from what it once was. Maurice Maeterlinck has suggested this -with his usual felicity. He imagines himself on a hill, from which he -sees two watercourses stretching toward the sea. One meanders over the -plains, wasting time and space, blindly finding its way over the -uneven ground: that is the old, unintelligent method of nature. The -other waterway stretches straight across the landscape, a canal cut by -man in the course of a few years, with no waste of ground: it is the -new, intelligent method of nature. By this method we now create new -species of plants in a thousandfold less time than natural selection -(in the usual sense) could do; and we do it precisely by dispensing -with the individualist struggle, by intelligent arrangement and -control. - -Early science set up unintelligent nature as a grand model for man. It -is time we outgrew this phase of infancy. Intelligence must -increasingly count in the life of the earth. We first organise a -nation, and presently we shall organise international life. We -organise particular businesses, and presently we shall organise the -whole industrial life of the planet. There is no part of human life -which calls more urgently for the application of intelligence than -this disordered, wasteful, pitiless, poverty-saturated industrial -world of ours. Let us treat human beings at least as intelligently as -we treat our flowers, and as humanely as we treat our horses. We do -not entrust those to the tragedy of struggle and survival. We need not -fear that there will be any restriction of the development of -personality. Under such a Collectivist system as I have in mind, -personality will be developed until every man and woman is conscious -of his or her share in the control of the destinies of this planet, -and the sheep-like respect for ancient traditions and abuses, which -impedes our progress to-day, will be for ever abolished. - - - CHAPTER VI. - IDOLS OF THE HOME - -AMONG the claims of reconstruction which the insurgent literature of -our time puts forward, none, perhaps, so startles and inflames the -Conservative as the demand for a reform of the family. Criticism of -this institution is, in fact, so severely punished or so slanderously -misrepresented that it is usually exercised in the more or less -impersonal form of the drama or novel. It happens, however, that the -drama or the novel is now quite the most effective means of -inoculating millions with critical ideas, and at least half the more -brilliant novelists and dramatists of Europe employ their art for this -purpose, or reflect some such sentiments in their work. Hence the -outcry about the "unclean novel": which is usually far cleaner -than the Old Testament, but more critical. Positivism had assured us -that this institution would be transferred intact to a human -foundation, and Murillo's "Holy Family" hung reverently over the -hearths of the new pagans. Now, half in fear and half in exultation, -the clergy cry that humanism has betrayed its moral poison and its -social menace. - -Our favourite phrase here is the saying that the family is the -foundation of the State. If one patiently considered the matter, one -would discover that the divine right of kings was once regarded with -equal confidence as the indispensable foundation of the State. It may -very well be that the divine duty of the family is no less open to -reconsideration. It might be noticed that the change from aristocracy -to democracy was at one time hailed with lurid prophecy even by -distinguished moralists and sociologists, yet this change has led to -greater efficiency and prosperity. We might perceive that the -Christian dogmas were once thought vital to our welfare, and it may be -that the Christian ethic is in some points as disputable as the -Christian dogmas. Few reflect on these matters, and the writer who -criticises the family is denounced with peculiar bitterness. Quite -certainly that tomb of dead civilisations yawns ominously before us if -we lend ear to this kind of rebel. The family is so plainly -indispensable an institution that it must be protected from criticism: -lest we be tempted to dispense with it. - -I propose, however, to make a critical study of the family. Indeed, I -venture to say at once that our ideal of the family is so encrusted -with ancient superstitions that it pressingly invites the critical -attention of our age: that the family is the foundation of the State -only in an historical sense, not in the sense that a State cannot be -based on any other procreative arrangement: and that the cloak of -superstition and rhetoric that we have put about it has covered for -ages, and still covers, an appalling amount of vice, hypocrisy, and -misery. My point of view has been stated. The affairs of this planet -must be run by men for men. The supreme aim must be to lighten the -burden of suffering which we inherit from a less intelligent and less -humane past. Any creed, code, or institution which forbids progress on -these lines must be assailed. - -The first and most damnable superstition in regard to the family is -the claim that marriage ought to be indissoluble. In its strict form -this belief is held only by Roman Catholics, and by a section of the -Church of England which was only partially reformed in the sixteenth -century and has a strange ambition to disavow even that limited -reform. But the most insidious mischief of this old ideal is that it -has embedded deep in our minds the feeling that, although indissoluble -marriage is an intolerable yoke, we must be very chary and niggardly -in granting relief. This feeling we ascribe to a wise concern for our -social welfare, whereas it is due to the subconscious tyranny of the -old superstition. Recently we have seen the strange spectacle of a -non-Christian moralist standing amongst our bishops to bar the way of -reform: seeking to prolong, in the name of humanity, a superstition -that darkens the homes of a large part of humanity. The bishops may -have smiled. - -A distinguished sociological writer, Mr. L. Hobhouse, in classifying -forms of marriage, says, with unconscious humour: "Marriage is -indissoluble among the Andamanese, some Papuans of New Guinea, at -Watubela, at Lampong in Sumatra, among the Igorrotes and Italones of -the Philippines, the Veddahs of Ceylon, and in the Romish Church." -One trusts that the Roman (and Anglican) Catholics like the company -they keep; the peoples enumerated by Mr. Hobhouse are the very lowest -and least intelligent savages known to science. The Church of Rome has -long boasted that its ideal of indissoluble union is the final and -culminating point of human wisdom in regard to the family. It now -appears that indissoluble marriage was the most primitive human -tradition, and was discarded by the Roman and all other civilisations -when they passed from childhood to manhood. - -Sociologists have been accustomed to say that monogamy was gradually -developed out of promiscuity. This was mere speculation, and Professor -Westermarck and other recent authorities rightly dissent. The -institution is older than humanity. We find monogamic family life -among the anthropoid apes and amongst the lowest peoples, which -represent early man; and many writers on prehistoric man now contend -that we find him passing from family to social life, not in the -reverse way. When the last Ice Age forced men to live in caves, and -the scattered families clung together and formed large social groups, -the family life was modified, and few of the higher tribes maintained -the primitive form. Réclus tells of a Khond who, on hearing of the -monogamous life of the wild Veddahs of Ceylon, exclaimed in disgust: -"They live like the apes." - -We may assume that little hardship arises from incompatibility of -temperament among the Igorrotes or the Veddahs, and there is no need -to describe the eccentric forms of marriage which arose among higher -savages. None of the great civilisations of the past entertained the -idea of indissoluble marriage. The clergy, of course, know nothing of -the real line of evolution, and (as Bishop Diggle has done) they -represent the Roman system as a comparative refinement of early -promiscuity, on which Christianity was to make the final advance. The -precious testimony of Juvenal is invoked (against the warning of all -modern historians): and we are expected to shudder because St. Jerome -tells us of a Roman lady who had been married a score of times. It is -not stated what harm was done to the lady, or to anybody else, or -whether she was a freak in her generation. It is enough, as Mrs. -Humphry Ward knows, to say that divorce is frequent anywhere, and -thousands of hands will rise to heaven: what the precise social -consequences are the thousand of heads seem to regard as irrelevant. - -I have read most of the literature of the Roman Imperial period, and -have found that the greater part of the statements made about it by -clerical moralists are rubbish. Every serious student knows that it -was precisely the more rigid and intolerable earlier form of Roman -marriage (the _confarreatio_) which led to laxity in the early Empire; -that the Roman Lawyers of the first and second centuries, who relaxed -marriage, were among the most conscientious that the legal world has -ever produced; and that in the time of St. Jerome--an embittered and -intensely puritanical priest, who says worse things about his -sacerdotal colleagues than he does about the pagans--we have the solid -testimony of such documents as the _Letters_ of Symmachus and the -instructive _Saturnalia_ of Macrobius to show that the family life of -the pagans was generally healthy, sober, and harmonious. There is not -a particle of proof that Roman society suffered because of the -facility of divorce, or generally abused this facility. - -But the misrepresentation of Roman morals is light in comparison with -the misrepresentation of later Christian morals. Christianity took its -ideal from the Jews. Amongst this partially civilised people marriage -had been made easy for the male by the retention of polygamy, and it -was not customary to consult the feelings of the woman. In the course -of time Greek influence entered Judæa, and the Rabbis held learned -debates on marriage and divorce. Both the stricter and the laxer view -found expression in the New Testament and in early Christian -literature, but a celibate priesthood obtained supreme power in Europe -and the stricter view was enforced. The moral consequences were -disastrous. While the Roman _Curia_, which could always find a flaw in -the marriage of a wealthy man, was enriched, Europe was degraded, and -sexual immorality became general. It is enough to recall that a -tradition of looseness, in strict correspondence with the law of -indissoluble marriage, survives from the ages of faith to our own time -in the Latin countries. Some have spoken of "the hot southern -blood" and cast the blame on the climate. I would invite the -informed moralist to run his eye over the map of the earth, and ask -himself whether chastity increases, or the sex-organs lose vitality, -in proportion as nations are removed from the Equator. It is a -ludicrous effort of Catholics to conceal the evils of indissoluble -marriage. Until the Reformation sexual laxity was the same all over -Europe. - -In England the old priest-made law was retained after the Reformation, -and laxity of morals was general. Except for a very few wealthy -people, divorce was impossible until 1857, when a slender measure of -reform was wrested from the clergy. This, the present law of England, -a miserable compromise with religious prejudice and a permanent source -of vice and misery, puts English legislation on an important aspect of -"the foundation of the State" below that of any other civilised -community. Instead of ridding themselves entirely of clerical -influence, and directing civic life on civic grounds, our legislators -looked still to ancient Judæa, and substituted the less stringent -view of the Rabbis for the more stringent. The legendary leader of a -rude Arab tribe had granted divorce for adultery, and the English -nation of the nineteenth century followed his example. The result was -the most stupid and mischievous law of marriage outside the sphere of -the Holy Catholic Church. - -English people are proud of their national concern for purity, yet -they tolerate, and their priests defend as something sacred, a state -of law which is medieval in its crudeness and barbarity. When two -people have obeyed our counsel to marry early, and they discover that -they have misjudged each other, we tell them that there is no relief -for them unless they commit adultery: which, when it is committed, we -brand as the darkest sin. To the husband we give the further -injunction that he must be cruel to his wife before we will release -him. We then, although we take especial pride in the "cleanness" -of our press and literature, print whole columns about their conduct -in suspicious situations,--sometimes entitling the account, in large -type, to attract attention, "A Horrible Case,"--and we ask each -other whether England is not in a state of decay and contracting the -continental spirit. If there are any who do not choose to commit -adultery, or do not choose to have their servants bribed to describe -their conduct for the entertainment of the public, we grant them a -legal permit to be happy and vicious, or miserable and virtuous, for -the remainder of their lives: the thing we call a judicial separation. - -This extraordinary situation is certainly a slight improvement on -indissoluble marriage, but the pride of our bishops and puritans in it -is peculiar. One may not expect them to take into account the -suffering which hundreds of thousands endure under the law, but the -adultery to which it leads would seem to be a proper subject for their -consideration. As a rule, they entreat us to maintain religion, -whether it be true or no, in the name of morality: here they ask us to -maintain immorality in the name of religion,--in the name of a -supposed Christian precept,--and we obey even more readily. When a -Royal Commission recommends that our law be brought into line with the -law of other civilised nations, they burn with indignation and inspire -a Minority Report: a remarkable mixture of contradictions, worthless -quotations, and irrelevant rhetoric. The question of immorality they -shirk; and to the unhappiness which large numbers of our people endure -under the present law they are so insensitive that they hardly mention -it. - -Such consequences are to be expected as long as we borrow our social -legislation from an ancient polygamous nation with a great disdain for -women. It is said, however, as usual, that our social interest -coincides with the supposed command of Christ. We have here one of the -most singular confusions of the whole controversy. Marriage is held to -be the foundation of the State, because it is believed to be the -surest way to supply it with citizens. This duty of procreation is, in -fact, the only feature which disposes priests to give their blessing -to so distasteful a thing as sexual union. Yet when a majority of the -Commissioners recommend that people should be free to remarry if the -desertion, cruelty, insanity, or imprisonment of one spouse defrauds -the State of its supply of little citizens, the bishops raise their -crosiers. Even so ascetic and anti-feminist a divine as St. Augustine -could not deny that a man had a right to take a concubine when his -wife proved sterile. Our divines speak much more fervently than St. -Augustine did of our social interest, yet they forbid us to consult -it. - -In sum, we have generally rejected the view that marriage ought to be -indissoluble, and we pride ourselves on curbing the influence of -priests; but our whole attitude toward divorce is shaped by the old -superstition and the clergy. In the name of that superstition we -condemn large numbers of our fellow-citizens to live in deep and acute -misery. Which of our social interests would be prejudiced by granting -relief to the man or woman whose life is embittered by the desertion, -incurable insanity, cruelty, or criminal conduct of his or her -partner? The suggestion is preposterous; and, if we do not grant this -relief, adultery is in their case a venial offence, if not a right. - -Some explain that they fear "the thin edge of the wedge." As if -wedges had a way of pressing deeper by their own weight, once we have -admitted them! If England chooses to grant these reforms, and no -others, she need not be deterred by empty phrases. But I believe that -the alert and resolute race which is coming will go much further than -this. Before many generations, if not in ours, there will be divorce -for incompatibility of temperament in every civilised country. Men and -women will be divorced, after due delay, because they wish, or when -one of them can show grave cause to separate from the other. -Ill-informed people express a concern about the children or the social -consequences. They do not take the trouble to inquire what happens in -some of the American States, or in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and -Switzerland, where there is long and ample experience of divorce by -mutual consent. The social consequences are just what any unprejudiced -person would expect: happier homes, and more healthily engendered and -reared children. But the puritan does not want to inquire: he is not -sincere. Would he agree to divorce by mutual consent where there are -no children or where either or both parents make adequate provision -for them? He would not. I will, however, return later to the question -of children. - -Europe will be far happier when some such humane law as the Danish is -generally adopted, and, after a few years' separation, the -discontented are free to remarry. But no one who is acquainted with -the tendency and influence of modern literature can fancy that this -will be the last state of the old ideal of the family. From the first -years when men were free to declare their opinions without fear of the -stake, writers of great power have claimed the right of what has come -to be called "free love." Some would abolish marriage, but the -normal shape of the demand is that men and women shall be free to love -and beget children whether or no they ask the blessing of Church or -State. By the latter part of the eighteenth century, when Goethe took -a concubine on the pagan model, many of the first literary men in -Europe pressed this demand, and it is sustained by some of the most -brilliant writers in every country to-day. The movement exhibits the -slow and steady growth characteristic of reforms which eventually -triumph. It is no mere bubble on the surface of our effervescent life; -it is the new intelligence of the race examining the old traditions. - -Moralists, lay and clerical, have a preposterous way of representing -this as a surging of selfish passion against the barriers which human -experience or superhuman wisdom has erected. There is, it is true, -much in our rebellious literature itself which misrepresents the -movement. You get the impression that, as the eighteenth century -questioned the divine right of kings and the nineteenth century that -of priests, the twentieth century is challenging the divine right of -moralists. But this is due to the common practice of giving a narrow -meaning to the word "immorality." Goethe and Swinburne became -zealous for "morality," but they never altered their opinions on -"free love." Sudermann and Anatole France and Pérez Galdós and -d'Annunzio, G. B. Shaw and T. Hardy and E. Carpenter and H. G. -Wells, are sincere moralists: they inculcate honour, truthfulness, -kindliness, and justice as firmly as our bishops, and more effectively -than most of our clergy. It is not morality that stands at the bar. -The real question is whether any sound moral principle implies that -marriage alone sanctions sex-union: whether social good or social evil -would result from an alteration of our standards. - -This is a quite natural and legitimate question, and any -healthy-minded person ought to be able to discuss it without hysteria -or vituperation. Christian moralists have made some very grave -mistakes during the last thousand years. Humility and disdain of the -flesh were for centuries extolled by them as the supreme virtues: -cruelty was classified as a venial offence. Already the bulk of our -divines reject the virtue of asceticism, and they forbear to press on -the modern world the kind of humility which turns the other cheek, or -the other pocket, to the hooligan. They discover that social justice -has been singularly neglected by their predecessors, and they begin to -suspect that war or sweating may be worse than unbelief or -Sabbath-breaking. It is not at all unnatural to inquire whether there -may not also be some element of error in their sex-ethic. - -We do not go far in such an inquiry before our suspicion is confirmed. -The evolution of the virtue of chastity may some day be traced by a -cold scientific investigator, and in its earlier stages it will prove -extremely interesting. It is primarily connected with an ancient -superstition or "tabu" in regard to sex-life: the kind of -primitive and unreasoning feeling which once drove women to the -temples of Ishtar in parts of the East, and still survives, baldly and -ludicrously, in the "purification" process to which a recent -mother must submit in the Roman and Anglican Churches. This old idea -that there was something "unclean" or mysterious about sex-life, -was more or less discarded when men passed out of the barbaric stage, -but it quite evidently survived in part in the virtue of purity. A man -or woman, it was thought, had a certain mystic superiority if he or -she did not use the organs of sex. Hence the widespread veneration of -Vestal Virgins, Pythagorean and Serapean recluses, priestesses of -Isis, Aztec and Christian nuns. I call attention particularly to the -notion that these celibates were in some sense superior to their -fellows, because it shows clearly the connection with the older idea -of a mystic uncleanness about sex. There is, of course, no rational -ground for this superstition, though even philosophers have -entertained it. There is a large and elegant literature about it, from -the _Enneads_ of Plotinus to Bulwer Lytton's _Zanoni_ or the works -of Miss Corelli. - -Most of us see quite clearly the barbaric strain lingering in this -admiration of virginity, but we do not perceive how far our virtue of -purity is a compromise with this ancient superstition. I mean that, -together with sound elements which I will discuss presently, the -sentiment of purity or chastity retained a good deal of the old -irrational view of sex. Luther boldly attacked the theoretical -asceticism of the medieval Church, but in the end Protestantism -compromised with the old tradition. This again is quite plainly seen -when we reflect on the way in which Church people, and many of our -modern mystics and feminists, breathe the word "lust." It means -merely pleasure in sexual intercourse, but it has to be mentioned as -rarely as possible, and with downcast eyes and an air of very distinct -disapproval. The impression is conveyed that it is a thing invented by -the devil, but reluctantly permitted by the Almighty because the race -had to be maintained. The blessing of the Church made it a barely -permissible luxury. We have only to reflect that "lust" does not -mean unwedded love, but sexual pleasure or desire under any -conditions, to recognise the trail of the old tabu over the whole -range of these sentiments. - -In the nineteenth century the evolution of morals took a strange turn. -Neither clergy nor laity had before that time, speaking generally, -observed chastity in practice, but the rise of non-Christian critics -in the eighteenth century had compelled the clergy to be more faithful -to their own precepts. This (and the growth of such movements as -Wesleyanism) led to more concern about virtue, and when the English -Agnostic school arose its leaders were taunted by the clergy with a -wish to rationalise or alter morality. By a natural reaction they -cultivated a particular zeal for virtue, and accepted the old code in -its entirety. Those moralists who appealed to a "categorical -imperative" or an "intuition" had no difficulty in doing this. -Indeed, any man who to-day accepts the Stoic idea of morality, or the -æsthetic idea (that virtue is so beautiful that we must cultivate -it), has as much right as the Christian to profess a regard for -chastity. There ensued a kind of rivalry of virtue between the clergy -and the new pagans. It has ended in the curious spectacle of our -modern clergy, whose historical knowledge is both slender and -peculiar, claiming that their Churches are the most faithful preachers -of purity the world has ever known, while Agnostic moralists -indignantly dispute their supposed monopoly. - -The extreme complexity of this evolution, and the fact that few of us -reflect critically at all on our moral sentiments, must excuse me for -making this lengthy analysis. It shows that our conception of chastity -still contains a large amount of the old non-rational tradition, and -that any man or woman who declines (as so many do to-day) to bow to -mystic and obscure commands has a right to examine it closely. In one -of my works (_Life of G. J. Holyoake_, ii. 65) I have shown that so -sensitive a moralist as J. S. Mill admitted this. Obviously, the -precept of purity or chastity has a totally different basis from all -the other recognised moral precepts. These others are invariably -social laws, and the transgression of them is invariably a social -hurt. Life itself furnishes the reply if a man asks why he _ought_ to -be just, kind, and truthful: the answer is not so obvious when he asks -why he _ought_ to be chaste. - -This will become very much clearer if we examine our resentment of -"immoral" actions. In the majority of cases we condemn them on -moral principles quite apart from chastity. Europe has in this respect -been lamentably misled by its professional moralists, and we can -hardly be surprised that in practice it so largely ignored them. It is -quite plain that a man or woman who has married on the usual -terms--mutual fidelity--and they remain unaltered, is bound by honour -and justice to observe the contract. Adultery is in such a case (the -usual case) condemned by moral principles which have a very much -clearer basis than chastity. Again, justice sternly forbids a man to -inflict, or run the risk of inflicting, grave injury on a woman by -causing her to have a child in a social order which will heavily -punish her for doing so. Here also there is a firm reason, apart from -chastity, for moral resentment. When we eliminate these other moral -sentiments from our condemnation of immoral acts, there is certainly -no _social_ ground of resentment left; and, as I said, I am not -arguing against a Stoic or æsthetic or theological view. Socially, it -would be an enormous improvement if we kept this analysis in mind. If -moralists talked less about "vice," which has an academic sound, -and more about "crime" and honour, there would be less suffering -in the world. The experience of two thousand years has not commended -the Church's practice of denouncing vice when it ought to have -appealed to a man's sense of honour or justice. It put the accent on -the wrong syllable. Many a man will shrink from an act which is -unjust, or may involve cruelty, if he is accustomed to regard it as -such. He is not so effectively intimidated by terms like virtue and -vice, which require a whole moral philosophy or theology to invalidate -them. - -But I am not for a moment contending that this removal of the accent -from one syllable to another leaves the law as it was. It is, on the -contrary, the very essence of my contention that the law must, in the -real interest of men and women, be altered and that a large amount of -ethical tyranny, which has no justification, must be abandoned. Let me -first put, with entire candour, what seems to me to be the only -rational reconstruction of sex-morality on a social basis, and then we -may regard the reasons for advocating it. - -It is, as I said, clear that if a man or woman marries on a strict -monogamous contract, and holds his or her partner to that contract, -there is a plain obligation of justice to adhere to it. If, on the -other hand, a man and woman choose to marry on any other -understanding, or choose to grant each other (as is now frequently -done) a greater liberty than the contract implies, their behaviour is -entirely their own concern, and no moralist who takes his stand on -purely social grounds has anything to say to it. In regard to -unmarried intercourse, it is further plain that a man commits an -immoral or anti-social act who entails on an unmarried woman the grave -injury which child-bearing does entail in our social order generally. -It must, however, be recognised that guilt is in this case entirely -relative to circumstances. Where public opinion does not make a pariah -of such a woman, where no risk of suffering is involved, such an act -of "free love" is no concern of the social moralist. Hence, if two -people of mature intelligence, making a just provision for possible -children, choose to live together without marriage, it is entirely -their own concern; and if any woman, strong and judicious enough to -take the responsibility of her acts, chooses love without marriage, it -is her own concern. - -If there seems to be an unfamiliar coldness and deliberation about -this defence of "licence," it is enough to recall the familiar -circumstances. One cannot, as a rule, inquire dispassionately into -this subject without raising an hysterical storm. The clergy and other -puritans accuse a man of the basest and most selfish motives; they -seem, indeed, so incapable of understanding that a man may plead for -this moral reconstruction on motives at least as unselfish and -elevated as their own that their obtuseness does little credit to -their own moral physiognomy. They make fanatical appeals to -undiscriminating prejudice, repeat silly phrases about "passion" -and "farmyard morals," and rely on intimidation. The consequence -is, that ordinary folk openly bow to their rhetoric and secretly -ignore it. Any properly observant person can find out in a week to -what extent London observes the virtue of purity. It is then left to -rebellious poets and novelists and other artists to make fiery -onslaughts on the tyranny: to speak of virtue as "the ash of a -burnt-out fire," to chant "the roses and raptures of vice," or -to say scornfully with Blake: - - "And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds, - And binding with briars my joys and desires." - -Therefore I have chosen to apply to the issue the cold deductive -processes with which experience as a professor of moral philosophy has -made me familiar. As I said, the Christian is free to observe his -supposed divine command, the Stoic may bow to a mystic and inscrutable -law, the moral æsthete may enthuse over the charm of virtue; but I -maintain that the sociological or utilitarian view of morals, which is -now generally accepted by the vast number of people who have ceased to -be Christian, cannot control sex-relations in any other sense than -this. A man must avoid injustice and hardship: a woman must use her -discretion. Indeed, as the clergy and the puritans now take their -stand commonly on social grounds, these social considerations are -effective against them. - -But the question is not merely academic. These cold and severe -deductions are very properly opposed to the heated phraseology and -sentimentality of Conservatives, who profess to be concerned about our -social welfare, but I am really pleading for the greater happiness of -the race, the lessening of hypocrisy, the curtailment of a system of -prostitution which makes the lives of so many women end in horror. -With all their talk about our "social welfare," the clergy and -their puritan supporters are in this respect the gravest disturbers -and restricters of our social welfare; and the insolence with which -they assail every attempt at reform is ludicrous in view of their own -record and gravely prejudicial to the advance of human happiness. It -is not a question of abolishing marriage, or of interfering with the -liberty of any. At one moment the clergy represent marriage as so -beneficent, so solidly established in the hearts of our people, that -only a morbid sensualist ever assails it; and the next moment they -suggest, in effect, that if we relax our coercion, people will abandon -marriage in such numbers that the social order will be overwhelmed. -Let us have sincerity and liberty. - -But neither is it a question of spreading a gospel of "free love," -in the perverse sense in which the clergy conceive such a gospel. The -considerations I have given above should make this plain enough. It is -a question of securing freedom and love for the hundreds of thousands -of mature women who cannot marry, or who do not choose to enter upon -the very precarious experiment of surrendering their privacy and -independence: a question of breaking the tyranny of an old -superstition which, by means of public opinion, forbids so many women -to have the child they desire to have, or the share of happiness from -which they are excluded: a question of putting an end to a vast amount -of needless suffering and privation and hypocrisy. The State would -gain rather than lose by this freedom: it is the Church only that -would suffer. Thousands of women already hold these views, as the open -circulation of the _Freewoman_ (a few years ago) and of our bolder -novelists shows. The feeling gains ground yearly, and the time is -approaching when that seal of ignominy which our priest-made law puts -on the "illegitimate" child will be removed, and men and women -will cease to speak of "lust." Sex-pleasure has no more taint than -any other, and the notion that it is justified only as an -accompaniment to the begetting of children, or to lessen the risk of -adultery, is childishly irrational and generally insincere. Laws there -must be: but the laws must be made for men, not men for the laws. It -is time that Europe shook off the conceptions of conduct which were -imposed on it by impotent monks like Gregory VII., and framed its own -rules in accordance with the new and healthier attitude toward life. -Asceticism is a commercial speculation--the sacrifice of earth for a -double share of heaven--which we have no longer reason to appreciate. - -The progress of this view will be assisted by two contemporary reforms -of received opinion. One regards the economic dependence of woman on -man, which I will discuss later. I need only recall here that some of -the worst evils of our marriage-system--the scheming and bartering and -linking for life--are due to this dependence. The other reform is the -widespread and increasing rejection of the old idea that a woman must -bear as many children as nature will permit her to have. - -There is amongst us a disgusting amount of hypocrisy in regard to this -question. The majority of educated people of all classes, even many of -the clergy, now practise artificial limitation of the family, yet we -proceed on the fiction that this is a disreputable practice. We turn -into pornographic dépôts the shops which sell contraceptives, and we -allow an antiquated law to be drastically enforced against men who -would be decent purveyors of the things we use in secret. We have -talked, and read journalistic articles, about "the dwindling -population of France" for twenty years, though it is only within the -last year or so that it has even slightly decreased; and the -birth-rate alone shows that London and Berlin and every other great -city are rapidly approaching the condition of Paris. We listen without -protest to the lamentations of half-informed faddists on the -limitation of the birth-rate in ancient Rome (where the practice was -confined to a few, and proved an excellent means of saving the State -by ridding it of a worn-out nobility) or the medieval republics of -Italy. And while we perpetrate these and a hundred other follies, we -know that the majority of us who are educated and unprejudiced find -the practice humane and commendable. We would, it seems, rather leave -frail girls to the mercy of quacks and dangerous operators than tell -them openly what better-educated ladies do to avoid conception. - -Yet we have not here even the excuse of an antique religious command. -The Catholic Church, it is true, severely condemns the use of -contraceptives, but one finds that its prohibition is based merely on -the reasoning of medieval celibates. With those who argue that the -practice is "against nature" one hardly needs to discuss. Half the -distinctive things of civilisation are "against nature," nor is -there any reason why we should not depart from the ways of that -ancient and unintelligent dame. Hardly less foolish is the alarm about -our dwindling birth-rate. With every industry and profession already -much overcrowded, we do not act very intelligently in censuring the -modern restriction of production. But these are, to a great extent, -either wholly insincere expressions or confused repetitions of ancient -prejudices. In France, where a society arose for the checking of the -practice, it was found that the members had an average of one child -and a half in each family. A similar census among the writers and -associations which attack Malthusianism in England might yield an -instructive result. - -One can understand the hostility to Malthusianism--or, rather, -Neo-Malthusianism, since Malthus's idea of restricting population by -avoiding intercourse is unnecessarily heroic--in a country like -Australia, which urgently requires population; though even in -Australia the opposition is futile. One can understand such hostility -in a land which has universal conscription, and neighbours with a -superior army; though I have elsewhere pointed out the sensible and -natural way to settle this difficulty. But it is quite irrational in -such a city as London. Five-sixths of us, it has been demonstrated, do -not attend church or take our code of life meekly from the clergy, as -our fathers did; our labour-market is, in every division, enormously -overcrowded; and our army is not affected by the dwindling birth-rate. -Why, in these circumstances, should the women of England be asked to -undergo the pain and sickness and weariness of a yearly birth, and -wear out their lives in the rearing of a large family? Men have, as a -rule, too little appreciation of the terrible burden they lay on their -wives, but their own interest at least ought to weigh with them. Why -be constrained to find the resources for rearing and educating a large -family when a smaller family will give better chances to the children -and conduce to the happiness of the home? - -To these questions the only answer is an irrational outpouring of -antique rhetoric. It is mere "lust" to have commerce without -children: it is "selfish" to wish to live in greater comfort by -restricting the family: it is "unnatural." The man who would -lessen the suffering of his companion in life, and obtain greater -advantages and more loving care for his children by restricting their -number, may smile at the futility of this kind of rhetoric. But it is -surely time, in the second decade of the twentieth century, to meet it -with a frank and curt declaration that we have, and will use, a right -to any pleasure which this life affords, provided it hurt no one. The -last trace of asceticism should be trodden underfoot. The medieval -clergy were a body of a few fanatics leading an army of hypocrites. -Their ideas have no place in our life. Love and joy and comradeship -are in themselves as much ours as the scent of the rose or the flavour -of wine. It is time that we echoed defiantly the sneering words of the -apostle, and said: Yes, _let_ us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. -We are not likely to forget that life has other pleasures, of culture -and art, besides those of the palate or of love. The supreme -commandment is, as old Egypt said: "Thou shalt make no man weep." -The supreme virtue is to quicken the hearts of men with joy and fill -their minds with truth. And the time will come when the clergy, -reading aright for the first time the life of the ages of faith, will -say: "We never insisted on our theoretical asceticism until those -dour sceptics of the nineteenth century compelled us: the Middle Ages -were the ages of liberty." - -The clergy are, in fact, in a dilemma. The cry of the hour is -"social consequences." There is a vast amount of doleful recalling -of dead civilisations and prediction of coming woe; though England was -never before so prosperous, solid, and free from crime. But dogmas -have worn so thin that we must be pressed to maintain them, even if -they are false, on social grounds. The answer is quite simple. If any -social quality or rule of conduct is necessary for our welfare and -happiness in this world, we need no dogmatic foundation for it. Men -will see that virtue is its own reward. And if any rule of conduct in -the Christian code is _not_ based upon the actual exigencies of life, -there will be no social consequences if we disregard it. The -superstitions I have assailed belong to this latter category. - -But a campaign against the artificial restriction of the birth-rate -has recently been inaugurated on what are thought to be serious social -grounds, and this leads me to a third and last reform which the family -will undergo. I refer to the Eugenic movement. Let me first explain -why this hostility of Eugenists to the restriction of the birth-rate -seems a needless and illogical complication of their aims. - -This hostility is usually expressed in the form of a fear that the -restriction of births among the "better class" and unrestricted -increase of the "lower class" must lead to deterioration. One -would think that the proper remedy of this would be to recommend -prudential restriction to the mass of the workers, as the Malthusian -League endeavours to do. It is a strange social idealism which would -urge over-production all round, with its train of domestic and -industrial evils, instead of urging restriction all round. It would -also be interesting to learn the average number of children to a -family among these zealous Eugenists, and whether they do not find -middle-class professions as overcrowded as the manual industries are. -At all events, since it is now impossible to induce educated mothers -to return to the virtuous and exacting industry of their Victorian -predecessors, the best thing would be to educate the masses in a -common-sense view of maternity and of their own interest. - -It will suffice here, however, to deal with the saner side of the -Eugenic movement. It proposes to eliminate bad human stock and promote -the mating of good stocks. These are those who find it a degradation -to introduce "the methods of the breeder" into human affairs, but -the objection is merely silly. The methods of the modern breeder are -an expression of intelligence, improving on nature; these -old-fashioned folk would have us disregard the persuasion of -intelligence and retain the crude methods of unintelligent nature. The -serious question is: Is the Eugenic proposal sound and practicable? - -As far as positive Eugenics, or the selection of good human stocks for -breeding, is concerned, the recent evolution of the movement seems to -show that no firm and practicable proposal can yet be formulated. The -truth is that the movement is greatly enfeebled by a general reliance -on disputed theories of heredity. Some Eugenists rely on Weismann's -theory: some on the Mendelist theory. They do not realise that -scientific men are by no means agreed upon these theories, and it is a -serious mistake to build on either. In England most of our biologists -are Weismannists (in a broad sense), but there is more hostility to -the theory in Germany and the United States, and both theories have -lately had to confront grave difficulties. Any Eugenic proposal which -is based on a theory of heredity must be regarded with reserve. The -dogmatic statements of Professor Karl Pearson, for instance, in regard -to the impossibility of altering by education the innate qualities of -a child are entirely unwarranted. Heredity is still a mystery: and the -relative importance of heredity and environment (or nature and -nurture) is not yet determined. - -Detaching the element of theory, we have a plain proposal to eradicate -tainted stocks from the human garden and promote the growth of the -sounder. As I have said, the positive proposal to breed has not yet -been put before us in a practicable or discussable form. This is -largely because Eugenists fear to alarm the public by pointing out how -it affects the position of marriage. There are, however, many other -difficulties. The extraordinary diversity among children of the same -parents warns us that we cannot count on the result of mating human -beings, with their infinitely more complex nervous systems, as we can -count on the issue of mating sheep or dogs. The mediocrity of the -living children of our ablest men of the last generation, even when -the mother was an excellent mate, is another circumstance to be -considered. We do not yet know the points to breed for, and there is -no constancy of result. Eugenists sometimes refer to the physical or -mental superiority of one class of children over another, but in this -they do not attempt to distinguish between the effect of environment -and the natural endowment. Positive Eugenics is not yet beyond the -stage of research. Such research, if conducted without academic -prejudice (which is too apparent in many Eugenic papers), is of very -great service; and, if ever a firm proposal lies before us, we may -trust that rhetorical phrases and clerical prejudices will not be -allowed to bar the way. - -In the case of negative Eugenics we are nearer agreement. Here again, -however, research is not always candid. Inquiries have been made into -the lineage of American criminals, and the large percentage of -criminals in one family is held to indicate a tainted stock: it is not -sufficiently noticed that they all lived in the same crime-breeding -environment. Other Eugenists try to intimidate us with the cry that -lunacy and crime are increasing rapidly: whereas (as I showed in the -_Hibbert Journal_, April 1912) there is no proved increase of lunacy -and no increase of crime, in proportion to the growth of population. -These methods bring discredit on the Eugenic proposals. It is, -however, now agreed that certain diseases, including certain forms of -mental disease, are transmissible, and common-sense suggests that we -should prevent their transmission. It is well to bear in mind, -however, that these things affect only a fraction of the community. As -is the case with every new social proposal, Eugenics is being pressed -as a panacea; and it appeals to many as a fascinating method of -healing our social maladies without touching the present distribution -of wealth. It is one subsidiary remedy among the hundred which modern -civilisation needs to apply. By all means let us discover what -"tainted stocks," if any, there are amongst us; and let us have -the elementary courage and intelligence to extinguish them, by the -isolation, painless destruction, or sterilisation of their -representatives. - -The future of the family seems not obscure. Malthusian and Eugenic -proposals will alter much of the crudeness and stupidity of the old -family ideal, and ease of divorce will remove the blight it has put on -many a home. Hundreds of thousands bless marriage with gratitude and -sincerity: tens of thousands curse it with equal sincerity. Let there -be liberty and life for all. For a modern legislature to ignore a vast -amount of vice and misery, and be guided by the ancient formula of a -celibate priesthood, is one of the most lamentable features of our -civilisation. And the unbiased social student may look without concern -on the growth of extra-matrimonial love. There is no interest of the -State which forbids it, nor any sound principle of morals. The woman -of the future will be her own mistress, responsible neither to priest -nor moralist in this respect. If she chooses, she will marry; but she -will not sacrifice half the joy of life because she cannot, or does -not choose to, venture upon the experiment of domestic intimacy. - - - CHAPTER VII. - THE FUTURE OF WOMAN - -THE old tradition of the family is intimately connected with the old -ideal of womanhood, and this in turn is summoned to the bar of modern -criticism. A substantial change in the position of woman seems so -revolutionary a disturbance, since it directly affects half the race -and must very seriously affect the home and the State, that our -Conservatives employ against the proposal the whole arsenal of -controversial rhetoric. We hear of the wisdom of the race--as if the -race did not grow wiser as it grows older--and the thin end of the -wedge. We are reminded that the ancient civilisations always came to -an end when their women rebelled against their natural position. We -have private appeals to our sensuous feelings and our instincts of -proprietorship, and open appeals to the ascetic doctrine of the -Pauline Epistles. We have history put before us, as usual, in chosen -fragments, and on the strength of these detached bits of learning we -hear impressive sermons on the "laws" of history and of nature. - -The appeal to history, which men like Dr. Emil Reich have so gravely -abused, is in this case singularly unfortunate. In most cases the -candid student of history finds some ancient abuse or irrational -tradition making its way from one civilisation to another, and finds -it natural that our more critical and independent generation should at -length seek to dethrone it. But in the case of woman the Conservative -has not even "the wisdom of the race" to appeal to. Her position -in the past has varied greatly, but it is very far from true that she -had always occupied that state of subjection in which our Victorian -reformers found her. I have elsewhere (_Woman in Political Evolution_) -surveyed the full story of woman's development, and will here be -content with a summary view which makes the Feminist movement of our -time intelligible. - -During the greater part of the history of civilisation, in the -Egyptian and Mesopotamian empires, woman had a considerable measure of -freedom and respect. When the Greeks and Romans entered the stage, -they brought with them a different tradition in regard to woman, but -as soon as they reached the height of their cultural development, -their women (and many of their men) rebelled against this tradition. -The civilisation of Greece was extinguished so speedily that the women -of Athens, aided by so eminent a thinker as Plato, had not time to win -their emancipation; but the Roman women did succeed in lifting -themselves from their position of subjection. In the meantime, -however, the political and religious development of Europe led to the -reappearance of the barbaric tradition in a new form. The Christian -leaders had in their sacred documents the social code of a rude -Semitic tribe, the Jews, which was sternly emphasised by St. Paul, and -they brooded darkly over the position of woman. Tertullian fiercely -reminded Christians that, but for woman, the race would never have -been damned. Ambrose ingeniously reflected that Eve was made out of a -mere rib, not out of the brain, of Adam. Augustine regarded woman as -an unpleasant institution created by Providence for the relief of -weak-willed males and for the maintenance of the race. Jerome frowned -heavily on the Roman woman's claim of emancipation. This quaint -mixture of Jewish contempt and ascetic dread was imposed on Europe by -the triumphant priesthood, educated mainly in the opinions of "the -Fathers," and woman sank again to a position of inferiority and -subjection. - -Women writers of many countries have written this story of the -degradation of their sex in Christian Europe, and one can only admire -the splendid audacity with which Bishop Welldon assures women that -Jesus Christ (who never uttered a protest against the Jewish -conception or a warning against the coming abuse of it) was "the -first to respect them," or the Bishop of London describes -Christianity as "woman's best friend," or Bishop Diggle -represents the Christian as an advance on the Roman attitude. Our -clergy are distinguished for the facility with which they make -historical statements without giving us any serious evidence of a -command of history; they have the advantage of being able to assure -their followers that it is a "sin" to read more accurate and less -orthodox experts. - -The historical truth is that the nineteenth century found woman in a -position far lower than that she had occupied at Rome seventeen -centuries before--far lower, indeed, than she had occupied during -(except for two brief periods) the many thousands of years of the -history of civilisation. It was quite inevitable that a movement for -her emancipation and uplifting should find a place among the great -reforms initiated in the last century. To conceive this movement as a -semi-hysterical rebellion against the settled usage of the race is -merely to betray a gross ignorance of history. Recent experience has -taught us that there is a great deal in the settled usage of the race -to rebel against; but it is false that in this case we are doing so. -The undisputed historical truth is that woman had been comparatively -free and respected during the greater part of the civilised period: -that, when the early civilisations of Greece and Rome had placed her -in subjection for a few centuries, she, at the beginning of the -Christian era, rebelled and won her emancipation: and that the later -period of subjection was merely due to the incorporation in the -Christian religion of the primitive and crude ideal of a polygamous -Arab tribe. Against this intolerable superstition modern civilisation -has rebelled, and we are in the midst of a far deeper discussion of -woman's nature and position than ever occurred before. - -The discussion is passing through the three phases which are customary -in these controversies. At first the clergy and the Conservative -quoted the Bible and the Fathers. Then, when women began to show that -they were disposed to examine a little more closely the authority of -documents which taught so obvious an injustice, it was pleaded that in -this case the religious view coincided with "sound" science and -sociology. In that phase we are to-day, discussing claims that -"nature" and our social interest are on the side of the old ideal. -In a few more decades, when the battle is won, the Bishop of London of -the time will be demonstrating that the reform was anticipated by the -Fathers sixteen hundred years ago and was contained, in germ, in the -New Testament. - -At present the controversy about woman's position turns largely on -the question of her "nature," and the literature of the subject is -prodigious. Woman has different organs and functions than those of -man, and it is natural to suppose that they will give her a different -character. Here is the opportunity of the male: he has a solid -scientific fact to build upon. - -He sagely examines the intellectual life of woman and pronounces it -inferior to that of man: he measures her brain and finds it smaller -than that of man, and thus discovers the scientific basis of her -inferiority; and he never reflects that, since he, on the whole, -forbade her to develop her brain and intelligence during the fifteen -centuries of Christian domination, it may be that her brain is not -working with all the energy of which it is capable. He lays down for -this dependent creature a certain code of deportment and behaviour, -and, when it has enfeebled her, he discourses on her inferior muscular -development: if any girls or women defiantly exercise their muscles -and become strong, he calls them "unwomanly" and happily -exceptional. He observes that woman is more emotional than man; and, -of course, he does not ask physiologists whether this may be merely, -or mainly, the effect (as it is) of the muscular and intellectual -restrictions he has placed on her. He bids her develop pretty curves -on her body for his entertainment, and never thinks about the -physiological and psychological effect of the dead mass of fat and the -flabby muscles. He kindly undertakes (for a consideration) the care of -this weaker companion, and, when she begins to prove that she can fend -for herself, he severely censures her for intruding on his -labour-market. He learns from novelists that she has a peculiar power -of "intuition" (in fiction), and a greater fineness of perception -than man (which exact experiment in America has shown to be untrue), -and is altogether a deep and unfathomable being. And he then, in -virtue of his superior understanding of her "mysterious" nature, -proceeds to dictate to her about her sphere and her capacities. - -The absurdities and contradictions of male writers on women, supported -by some women writers, during the last two hundred years, would fill a -volume. They were more or less intelligible, and certainly -entertaining, in the earlier part of the modern period, but at a time -when we have scientific and historical information to guide us they -are neither intelligent nor amusing. We now know that there is no such -thing as an unchangeable nature of a living organism. Structure and -function vary with use and environment, whatever theory of heredity -one follows. Forbid the brain and muscles to function for some -centuries, and they will become feebler: restore their activity and -they will return to strength. Shut a woman out of politics or business -or war, and she will lose her capacity for it: reintroduce her to it, -and her faculties are sharpened. When the kings of Dahomi formed a -regiment of women in their army, the women were found to be more -deadly fighters than the men, and they drank as heavily. - -As far as the political phase of the modern Feminist struggle is -concerned, the application of these principles is clear enough. When -statesmen can find no better argument against the enfranchisement of -women than the fact that (like the politicians themselves) they do no -military service, and when scientific men plead only their periodical -perturbations and their "change of life," it is time to cease -arguing. Even in countries which have a system of conscription it has -never been proposed that those who are exempt from service should not -have a vote. In a country like England the objection is supremely -foolish: it reminds one of Plato's ironical argument, in this -connection, that men who are bald should not be allowed to make shoes. -As to the comparative disturbance of judgment which a certain -proportion of women suffer at certain periods, it is preposterous to -suppose that this does not unfit them for more important work, but -_does_ unfit them for casting a vote once in seven years. Is it -suggested that the Conservative matron will, if an election fall in -her period of nervous instability, march in a frenzy to the poll and -vote for Keir Hardie? Even the more or less intoxicated male voter -does not overrule a settled conviction so easily. But it is waste of -time to discuss such matters. A simple investigation of years of -experience in America and Australasia is more valuable than the -pedantic declarations of one or two scientific men. Even Conservative -Australians smiled when I asked them if the consequences of female -enfranchisement, as they are darkly foreboded by serious people in -England, had been observed in their Commonwealth. - -The anti-suffrage campaign has been the death-blow of the prejudice -against the enfranchisement of women. It has shown the complete -futility of the Conservative position. Women would probably have the -vote in England to-day if a section of those who demand it had not -taken a false path. The end, however sacred, does not justify criminal -means; nor can any serious statesman yield to violence and -intimidation. Yet there is nothing in this temporary aberration to -strengthen the anti-Feminist position. It was an error of judgment and -a misreading of history. I am well acquainted with many of the ladies -who did these regrettable things, and I know that the suggestion of -"hysteria" is an insult. It is, however, useless to discuss this -question further. Women will be enfranchised in England within a few -years, and in all civilised nations within a quarter of a century. - -Then will begin the campaign for the right to sit in Parliament, even -in the Ministry. From sheer force of prejudice the great majority of -the enfranchised women will resist this further claim, and the long -story of education and agitation will be repeated. This is the outcome -of our habit of persistently compromising with false traditions -instead of frankly discarding them. The immortal jokes about women -will be retailed in the House of Commons by our legislators; the same -dark warnings will come from scientific Cassandras who have felt -social influence; the same tragic whispers about "what every woman -knows" will be heard in drawing-rooms. Then, about the year 1930, we -will discover that woman is really capable of undertaking the not very -exacting duties of the average Member of Parliament,--if we have not -in the meantime abolished these aimless long debates on subjects which -all approach with a fixed conviction,--and that it may not be -impossible to find a woman with the capacity of Mr. Reginald M'Kenna -or Lord Gladstone or Mr. Walter Long. Our Mrs. Humphry Wards will be -the first to compete for the office. - -I turn to the more serious question of the economic enfranchisement of -women. On this side of the Feminist movement our views are hardly less -hazy than in regard to politics. The middle-class, being the brain as -well as the backbone of England, is chiefly responsible for the maxim -that woman's place is the home; but the middle-class is also the -great employer of labour, and it has found that female labour is -cheaper than male, and has therefore concluded that woman's proper -place is the office or the workshop. More than a fourth of the girls -and women of England work outside the home. This material incentive to -right views is, however, limited in its action. When the middle-class -woman in turn seeks economic independence, she is received with -coldness, if not derision. Women may be clerks, teachers, actresses, -telegraphists, hosiery-makers, etc., but they ought not to aspire to -be doctors, lawyers, or stockbrokers. If they ask the reason, they -hear an inconsistent jumble of statements. In the first place, of -course, they are not clever enough; in the second place, however, they -are likely to be so far successful that they would lessen the -available employment of men. - -Certainly in such a haphazard industrial world as ours the accession -of a fresh army of workers will cause, and is causing, confusion. On -the _laissez-faire_ principle this overcrowding of the market is good; -it gives a greater play to selection and promotes efficiency. But we -have, as I said, forced _laissez-faire_ to compromise with decency. We -prefer a little overcrowding, but not too much. The opening of the -doors of all the professions to woman means a worse overcrowding than -ever in the medical and legal worlds, and we naturally hesitate. - -Naturally, but not justly or logically. Between logic and justice the -modern man pleads that he is distracted, and he asks time for -reconstruction; asks, in other words, that we should leave the trouble -to another generation. This shrinking from trouble is of no avail. We -have sanctioned the principle of female industry outside the -home--millions of women are so employed in England to-day--and we have -absolutely no ground to limit it except the natural disability of -woman or the social need for her to undertake other functions. Of her -natural disability little need be said here. We have had, in most -countries, decades of experience of the employment of women in many -industries--teaching, nursing, journalism, factory-work, art, theatre, -post-office, type-writing, shop-work, and so on. What proportion of -complaint to the number of workers is there that their periodical -functions make them unfit for employment? We do not need learned -experts on gynecology to tell us of the acute and exceptional cases -which have come under their observation. The scientific and practical -procedure is to make a general inquiry into the net result of our -employment of millions of girls and women. Most of us would await such -a report with confidence. As long as the wages of women are lower than -those of men, we hear very little complaint; nor do we find the work -of our schools or the play of our theatres very much interrupted by -peculiarly feminine weaknesses. Of late years women have shown that -they are equally qualified to be dentists, doctors, chartered -accountants, etc. Common-sense would persuade us, if we would find the -real limits of woman's capacity, to open to her all the doors of the -world of work and learn it by experience. - -One must give more serious attention to the claim that this economic -enfranchisement of women will tend to lessen maternity, and will -therefore endanger our social interests. This question of the -birth-rate is, in fact, very important from many points of view, and -it is extremely advisable to have a clear and reasoned grasp of it. -Many people are at once alarmed if it is shown that a practice will -tend to lessen the birth-rate. They rarely examine with critical -attention the reasons which would be alleged by those who maintain -that a lowering of the birth-rate _is_ a social menace. - -But one needs no lengthy reflection to discover that at the root of -all this clamour for maintaining or increasing the birth-rate we have -only military requirements. Some, indeed, urge that a nation needs as -many soldiers as possible for her industrial army as well as for her -military forces; but, seeing that each nation already has more than -she can employ, we are not impressed by this phrase. It is not volume -of production, or gross largeness of revenue, which makes a nation -great. It is the proportion of her revenue to her population, and in -that respect some of the smallest States are the most happily -situated. The need of a large army alone justifies complaints about a -falling birth-rate, and it is monstrous that we should lay this strain -on parents merely in order to produce "fodder for cannon." The -actual need of each country, as long as the military system lasts, -must, of course, be met, but--apart from the hope that we will soon -cast off the greater part of this military burden--two circumstances -show that we have not here a sound and permanent social need. The -birth-rate is falling in all civilised countries, and will eventually -reach a common low level; and the war has shown us that a nation with -a reduced population may, like any nation with a small population, -find compensation for its weakness in alliances. - -The truth is that the premature advance of France in restricting its -birth-rate has led to a general fallacy. France exposed itself to a -particular danger in face of Germany, and this special weakness of -France was converted into the general statement that any nation which -reduces its birth-rate is in danger. Not only is the general statement -untrue, but the particular case of France is very carelessly -conceived. After 1871 the German Empire had such an advantage in -population over France, and (until 1895) so much less need of -maintaining a fleet, that even a full birth-rate would not have -equipped France confidently for a combat. In any case, we come back -always to military needs, and we may trust that these will not long -impose their terrible strain on civilisation. There is, apart from -them, no reason why the birth-rate should not sink in every country to -the level of the death-rate, and in many countries even lower. - -On the other hand, the superficial folk who cry for heavy maternity -and full cradles overlook a very important social fact. I am thinking -chiefly of the men and women who denounce in principle the practice of -restricting births. Not only do they ignore the overcrowding of our -trades and professions,--and they are usually amongst the most -reluctant to organise them,--but they fail to notice that the -increasing application of science and humane sentiment to our modes of -living threatens the earth, as a whole, with enormous over-population, -unless the birth-rate be checked. The population of England has -increased nearly fourfold in the past hundred years, whereas it had -little more than doubled in the previous two hundred years. The -factors which are responsible for this vast modern increase are -becoming more active every decade, and are spreading over the world. -How will the population of Europe and Asia stand when they are fully -applied in Russia, China, and India? Within twenty years the United -States, according to its agricultural experts, will have as large a -population as it can support, and we have already seen Germany very -largely thrust into war because of its superabundant population. The -future is full of peril and misery if we continue to allow this -military demand for men to masquerade as a sound and permanent human -need. The birth-rate _must_ be checked. - -We must therefore refuse to allow the path of reform to be obstructed -by either the priest or the drill-sergeant. If ever a time comes when -some real interest of the race is endangered by too low a birth-rate, -we may trust the race to see to it. Conservatives often imagine that -those who would reform life on common-sense lines are devoid of -sentiment. They confuse sentiment and sentimentality, which is -sentiment out of accord with reason. The man of the future will be, in -my judgment, not less, but more emotional than the man of to-day; but -he will not allow ancient prejudices and mere phrases to have the -unchecked support of his feelings. It will not be enough to tell him -that divorce is increasing, or the birth-rate falling, or respect for -the clergy deteriorating. He will ask the precise value in social -terms of your bogy. At present we have, on broad social grounds, much -to gain and nothing to lose by a fall of the birth-rate. Indeed, the -prospect of a fall is, as far as this economic development alone is -concerned, much exaggerated. Millions of employed women have, and will -continue to have, children. Under our present system of industry this -has undoubtedly certain risks and burdens; under the organised system -of employment for which I plead it will be possible to adjust -employment to maternal functions. - -And this brings me to the cardinal issue of the whole controversy: the -economic position of the married woman or the mother. Let us face this -graver position quite candidly. The industrial disorganisation will -right itself in the course of time. The middle-class father of our -time whose daughter does a certain amount of work, not in order to -relieve his pocket, but in order to buy additional luxuries for -herself, has assuredly a grievance. She takes part of a man's work -and pay, yet leaves on him the old burden of maintenance. She makes -matters worse by accepting a low wage, because she is not -self-maintaining. I am assuming that women will become independent -economic units, and that the rate of payment will be--equal wage for -equal service. - -But the position of the married woman, or of the independent woman who -undertakes maternal functions, forms a special and difficult problem, -which is pressing upon us more heavily every decade. There is -spreading rapidly through the civilised world a feeling of rebellion -against the economic dependence of wife or husband. No Conservative -argumentation, no censure of new ideas, no religious preaching of -self-sacrifice for a doubtful reward in heaven, will relieve us of -this difficulty. Educated women--statistics of college-taught women -are available--are increasingly rebelling against the subjection or -inferiority which this economic dependence seems to entail. It is the -chief motive of the general demand for economic independence (or an -independent place in the industrial world) and has much to do with the -revolt against marriage itself. Whether or no we adopt new ideals of -social life, this revolt will spread. - -One very quickly sees that it is not so much marriage as the -traditional practice of husbands which is chiefly responsible for the -revolt. The practice varies considerably, but, apart from a small -class in which the wife brings with her or earns an independent -income, it is still generally true to say that the wife receives what -the husband chooses to give. Now it is plain that this difficulty may -be met in a very large proportion of cases by an equitable voluntary -agreement. Various domestic experiments of the kind are being tried, -and a comparison of experiences would be useful. Many people are -agreed in the just view that, since the wife works at home while the -husband works abroad, all income is joint income. A common fund, -accessible to both, is assigned for household and saving, and an equal -and fixed personal share is taken by each from the income or wage. -Such an arrangement is quite easily practised by middle-class people, -and it seems to me to remove every legitimate suspicion of ignominy -from the wife's position. - -When unmarried women have secured economic independence they will be -able to demand some such arrangement before marrying. The kind of -"modesty" which would prevent a woman from having an understanding -before marriage in regard to income and children is a very costly and -foolish luxury. Let them insist that the ritual words, "With all my -worldly goods I thee endow," must mean something more than that they -shall have chocolates and pretty dresses _if_ they humour the moods of -a husband. Our law, which secures for a wife full maintenance when she -has ceased to do any work for it (after a separation), but has no -interest in her when she is working dutifully for twelve or fourteen -hours a day, is infinitely more dangerous to marriage than are the -puritan assaults of Mr. G. B. Shaw. In any case, a voluntary agreement -that a wife has access to the bank and cash-box, and a right to take -for personal use the same sum as her husband, removes all need of -asking money from a husband (which is justly odious to many women), -and makes a wife economically independent in any important sense of -the word. - -But it would be futile to hope either that the majority of men will -thus surrender their privileged position, or that all women will -recognise even such an arrangement as economic independence. A grave -conflict undoubtedly lies before us, and there will be an increasing -demand for the State-endowment of wifehood, or at least of motherhood. -The suffrage movement has naturally inflamed the difficulty by -educating women in a sense of grievance. Indeed, it seems to many of -us that Feminist writers have at times gone far beyond legitimate -grievances and set up fictitious and mischievous standards. This is a -very common development of propagandist movements which meet with a -prolonged resistance. The first generation of agitators says the -obvious and just things in regard to the reform: the next generation -must revive the jaded sentiment with stimulating novelties and -exaggerations. It seems to me one of these morbid exaggerations to -speak of marriage as "legalised prostitution"; to imagine that one -is "selling one's body" to a man, or receiving payment for -ministering to his "lust." One Feminist writer of some influence, -and some pretension to knowledge of science, has actually compared the -human male very unfavourably with all other male animals in the world, -on the ground that the latter are content with a restricted period of -"rut"! - -This mixture of ancient Puritanism and advanced sociology is as -incongruous as it is mischievous. A woman who sincerely regards -sex-pleasure in the way generally implied by the use of the word -"lust"--a woman who has not the same healthy desire of it as her -partner--has no right to marry: except, of course, to marry a man with -similarly antique views. A wife of such a kind may very well consider -that she is being "paid" to surrender her body. The normal wife is -not paid for that at all. She is paid--if there is any paying--to care -for the home and her children: which is as well earned a payment as -the fee of a lawyer. And from the sentimental point of view it does -not make a particle of difference whether she is paid out of her -husband's income or out of the coffers of the State. She would still -"sell her body," if there is any selling of body. But there is -not. Maternity and sex-pleasure are entirely different matters. - -I am deliberately trying to undermine the plea for the endowment of -motherhood, because the proposal seems to me to present very grave -difficulties which even so penetrating a sociologist as Mr. H. G. -Wells has, apparently, not appreciated. Mr. Wells is, of course, in a -very different position from the Feminist writers who advocate the -complete endowment or maintenance of wives or mothers by the State. -Such a scheme would cost about £300,000,000 a year, and need not be -discussed. Mr. Wells suggests rather a modest contribution per child -born (leaving out, I assume, wealthier mothers); a practicable scheme, -with much in its favour. Yet it seems to me that such endowment would -mean that we would encourage the weakest in will, the most sensual, -the least intelligent and least provident of our people, to breed. -Intelligent women would not abandon the practice of restricting births -because the State offered them a few shillings per child. The better -class--whether of manual or professional workers--would have to pay -for the undesirable fertility of the worst class. We are just -beginning to realise that quality of children is more precious than -quantity, and the endowment of motherhood would not encourage this -saner view. The kind of brute who is at present restrained by the -paternity-law would be restrained no longer: the rougher type of -husband--a very numerous type--would pay so much less to his wife when -he found the State contributing (either in cash or kind) to her: the -man who at present practises restriction, not out of consideration for -his wife and family, but to have more shillings for himself, would -cease to practise it, and lay a greater burden on his wife. - -But, while there seem to be such grave objections to the endowment of -motherhood that we do better to strengthen women in their individual -demand of justice, we must remember that the wife will have the -advantage of other changes in the home. Domestic service is becoming -more and more repugnant to girls, and some form of co-operative and -efficient housekeeping, with common servants and restaurant, will be -adopted. Some day a photograph of a twentieth-century suburb will -provoke a smile. Perhaps the museum of the future will set up models -of our establishments, just as we set up in our ethnographical -galleries models of a Kaffir or a Papuan household. Boys and girls -will gaze with admiring delight at the naïveté of the model: a -thousand brick boxes, separated by a thousand little gardens, with -three thousand little chimneys smoking, a thousand amateur cooks -perspiring over a thousand fires, and a thousand inefficient -servant-girls flirting with the servants of rival butchers and -dairymen. The common nursery will especially relieve the mother and -lower the death-rate. The State will one day have an interest in -seeing that each babe ushered into the world, at such pain and -sacrifice, becomes a useful citizen. If any mothers care to entrust -the child more fully to it, the State will find it profitable to -respond. These things can be arranged without more detriment to -parental affection than there is in the case of women--often women who -write beautiful things in defence of the old tradition--who have -nurses for the child and send it later to a distant school for the -greater part of the year. - -Reforms of this kind will enormously relieve the home life and enable -even mothers to earn, if they wish, quite as much as the State would -ever be able to award them. The work will be better done, by trained -workers, at less cost. People do not reflect that this change has been -proceeding for centuries. Once the wife brewed the ale, and baked the -bread, and spun the linen: later she entrusted these things to experts -working for the community, and reserved for herself the making of -preserves, pickles, underclothing, and antimacassars: now these things -have gone to the expert, and the wife confines her amateur efforts to -scolding children and cooking refractory joints. She will be relieved -when it is all over, and we shall have no more of the "beautiful -doll" or the domestic drudge. The independent position and greater -leisure and broader interest in life will make her intellectual -activity more similar to that of man's. - -I speak, of course, of the mass of women, and do not forget that -already the intellect of alert and thoughtful women is equal to that -of men of the corresponding class. The majority will be, as it were, -differently orientated toward life by these changes. A saner muscular -activity will restore the balance of the system, and will rid them of -the excessive nerve-energy, particularly of the sympathetic system, -which finds expression in facile and explosive emotion. There will -assuredly always be a bias toward sentiment in woman, and we have no -reason to fear a deterioration of the distinctively feminine -sentiments of tenderness, refinement, and sympathy. The relief from -the more irritating domesticities ought to accentuate them. On the -other hand, the idea of obeying the male or practising self-sacrifice -for his undue benefit, will certainly disappear; and it is quite time -that it did. Self-sacrifice, in case of need, comes instinctively to -either sex, but the kind of self-sacrifice which a selfish masculine -tradition has pressed on women is degrading to the man and unjust to -wife and daughter. All that is attractive and really beneficent in -woman will be fostered, but on the emotional side it will become less -and less characteristic of one sex. The sharp contrast of the sexes -tends to disappear. There is something grotesque about the traditional -idea that the human male must be distinguished by a greater capacity -for taking alcohol and using meaningless expletives and telling sexual -stories. Even in physical strength and athletic skill the sexes are -approaching; nor does one find any loss of charm or grace in some of -the finest women athletes. - -These changes are proceeding, and, apart from inevitable errors and -excesses, on which caricaturists fasten with their genial -unscrupulousness, the result is promising. Contemporary expressions of -alarm are often ludicrous. Thousands of ladies who are horrified at -the emergence of "a new sex" are themselves contriving, by means -which would have caused their prolific grandmothers to raise white -hands to heaven, to limit their families to two children. We take our -reform in small doses, as if complete social health were a thing to be -considered very seriously. Yet if one patiently traces in imagination -the effect of all these changes on the womanhood of the race, one -foresees a generation of women which recalls Shelley's lines: - - "And women, too, frank, beautiful, and kind - As the free heaven which rains fresh light and dew - On the wide earth, past; gentle radiant forms, - From custom's evil taint exempt and pure; - Speaking the wisdom once they could not think, - Looking emotions once they feared to feel, - And changed to all which once they dared not be, - Yet, being now, made earth like heaven; nor pride, - Nor jealousy, nor envy, nor ill-shame, - The bitterest of those drops of treasured gall, - Spoilt the sweet taste of the nepenthe, love." - -Grant the poet his licence; women are not more likely than men to -become angels. The moral superiority which some Feminist writers claim -for their sex is founded on a curiously narrow view of life; if man, -instead of woman, had to pay the penalty of sexual intercourse, we -should probably find the aggression on the other side. Yet the most -sober-minded of us must expect from this healthier balance of powers, -this easing of the domestic burden, this limitation of care to a few -children, and this independence of marital generosity or marital -selfishness, a great advancement in the character and happiness of -woman. - -Shelley, however, was thinking less of wives than of free women, and -economic independence will swell their numbers. The changes I have -described will make marriage far less onerous, but they will also make -it easier for a woman to dispense with marriage, and before the end of -the twentieth century there will be in every city a growth of -temporary unions and independent conduct. Woman will be mistress, -morally and economically, of her own destiny; she will consult neither -husband nor priest. The plain moral law, which forbids a man to -inflict pain or injustice, will be more faithfully observed than it -ever was before. There will be an immense reduction of the hypocrisy, -the prostitution, the misery and illness, which this fictitious law of -chastity has always caused; and the alteration of public opinion will -remove from a woman the unpleasant consequences which unwedded love -entails at the present time. It is preposterous to say that the State -will be injured by these changes, and it seems clear that woman will -be happier, more healthily developed, and not less tender and graceful -than she can be under the present reign of shams. - - - CHAPTER VIII. - SHAMS OF THE SCHOOL - -THE constructive scheme which I have in mind throughout this -criticism of our prejudices and institutions may, as I said, be summed -essentially in two words: industrial organisation and education. When -we have reformed our administrative machinery, which we miscall -"government," and abandoned our military and naval atrocities, and -simplified international life, our chosen public servants will find -that these two are their chief concerns. Probably the supreme concern -will--once we have constructed an orderly industrial machinery--be -education, in the sense which I would attach to the word. Every year a -million new citizens will join the community, and it will be the -State's first business to see that they are thoroughly prepared in -every respect to contribute to its weal and happiness, and that they -maintain throughout life sufficient intellectual alertness to control -their common concerns with wisdom and in a progressive spirit. It is -as a necessary preliminary to this that I have dealt critically and -reconstructively with the home and the parent. - -That glorification of indolence which we call the principle of -_laissez-faire_ is so successful in this department of our public life -that what ought to be the State's chief concern is hardly ever -mentioned in our orgies of parliamentary debate. We peck at it -occasionally. We enact that babies must have orange-boxes, and that -children must not smoke cigarettes or approach within a certain number -of yards of a bar (so that we get bar-scenes outside the door); and -occasionally the representatives of rival sects get up a grand debate -on the Bible in the school. These things emphasise the general -neglect. _Laissez-faire_ meant originally, "Leave things as they -are"--it sounded better in French, but, like many ancient -sentiments, it was converted into a respectable philosophy: "The -State must leave as much as possible to the individual and the -amateur." Nineteenth-century Radicals fought heroically for this -Conservative principle. - -Education, however, was so flagrantly neglected by the parent and the -Church that we had to compromise and take the child's mind out of -their care: leaving its body and character to the old hazards. At last -it dawns on us that a sound body and character are just as important -to the State as the capacity to read comic journals and stories: that -the entire being of the child needs expert training, and it is worth -the State's while to give it. This broad ideal of education is -increasingly accepted by pædagogists and social writers, and it is -already largely embodied in educational practice. It has provoked the -usual reaction, the usual determination that we will not allow our -ways to be reformed without a struggle. "Advanced" teachers fight -with Conservative teachers and politicians (particularly of the vestry -type), and the familiar old hymn-tunes are heard throughout the land. -We must not weaken parental responsibility: we must not lessen the -charm of the domestic circle: we must not encroach on the sphere of -the Church: we must beware of Socialism: we must resist the thin end -of the wedge wherever we see one. - -Why did the State, in the first half of the nineteenth century, -undertake the task of educating the young? I do not mean that -State-education was a new thing in history when a few European -Governments adopted it little over a century ago. The Roman Empire had -had a very fair system of municipal and State-education, and it is one -of the gravest charges against the clergy that they suffered it to -decay, and allowed or compelled ninety per cent. of their followers to -remain in a state of gross ignorance for fourteen hundred years. At -the end of the eighteenth century, as the revolt against -ecclesiastical authority spread, the idea of State-education was -revived. In England the clergy warmly resisted the progress of the -idea, but the appalling ignorance of the people proved intolerable to -the increasing band of reformers. Quakers like Lancaster and Agnostics -like Robert Owen demanded and provided schools for the children of the -workers, and the Church of England was forced to meet this danger of -unsectarian education by founding a rival and orthodox association. -But for fifty years the schooling remained so primitive, and the -proportion of illiterates remained so enormous, that at last the -bishops were brushed aside and the Government was compelled to resume -the work of the old Roman municipalities and Senate. - -The motives of the reformers and statesmen who secured this advance -were complex. Some of them were frankly anti-clerical and eager to -undermine superstition: some of them were business-men who pleaded -that a lettered worker was worth more to the State than an illiterate -worker. The predominant feeling was, as it had been among the Stoic -reformers at Rome, humanitarian. The gross ignorance of the mass of -the people was a disgrace to civilisation and a source of brutality -and crime: it was a human duty to educate. It was very widely -recognised that this sentiment imposed on us a duty of developing the -child's character as well as its mind, but here the Churches were -inflexible. Unblushingly asserting that they were the historic -educators of Europe, they refused to relinquish their last hold on the -school, and the State was compelled to accept the compromise of -religious instruction in the public schools, as well as the endowment -of sectarian schools. As to the third part of the ideal of education, -the cultivation of the body, we may admit that science itself was not -yet sufficiently advanced to demand it. - -With the growth of democratic aspirations, the Conservative began to -see a danger in this plea that the community must see to the full -development of all its children, and new phrases were invented. -"Industrial efficiency" was the most plausible of these checks on -education. The manual workers were to have their intellects awakened -to the slight extent which was needed to make them better instruments -of production, but no further: lest they should become dissatisfied -with their position of inferiority and disturb our excellent -industrial order. Educators, however, refused to be restrained by this -kind of sociology. It was their business to develop the child's -intelligence, and they had a fine ambition to do it thoroughly. They -built infant-schools, which took the tender young away from their -mothers, to the great advantage of both. They found that large numbers -of children were too poorly fed or too defective in body to receive -real education, and they instituted drill and demanded cheap or free -meals and medical inspection. They abolished the half-timer, and -raised the age of compulsory attendance. They began to resent the idea -that lessons from the Bible were a training of character. These -developments have alarmed many. They begin to see that in the long-run -these things will impose on the State the duty of developing the -child's whole being--body, mind, and character--before the boy or -girl is allowed to enter the industrial world. We hesitate, as we do -in face of all large and fully developed ideals, and look round for -ways of escape. - -The chief of these evasions is still the doctrine of what we call -"parental responsibility." Some day the idea that a parent is the -best-fitted person to train a child will be regarded as a medieval -superstition. The parent is as amateurish in training children as in -cooking or making frocks. The notion that "nature tells" a mother -what to do is part of the crude psychology of the Schoolmen. From the -moment of birth, and during the months before birth, the human mother -has no inspiration whatever. She goes by tradition, by the crude -advice of elders and neighbours, as every observer of the arrival of -the first baby knows. A cat acts by what we call "instinct,"--by -certain neuro-muscular reactions which natural selection has -perfected,--but a human being has intelligence instead of instinct, -and the first thing intelligence enjoins is that experts ought to be -trained for particular duties. The death-rate in every civilised -country has gone down enormously since we ceased to rely on motherly -instinct, or grandmotherly fables. A time may come, therefore, when -the State will receive a bearing woman in a properly appointed home, -and will care for the child from the moment of birth until, in its -later teens, it is equipped for work. I will suggest in the next -chapter that this ought by no means to be regarded as the completion -of education; here I am concerned only with the earlier part. Many are -convinced that this is the last and logical term of the development on -which we have entered. - -I am avoiding remote ideals as much as possible, but it is important -to meet the prejudice which opposes reform along this line. Many -people tell us that, if this unnatural dethronement of the mother and -invasion of the home are to be the final terms of our present -development, they will resist it at every step: on the familiar -thin-end-of-the-wedge principle. Our beautiful "home life" must be -preserved at all costs. Our "parental instincts" shall not be -enfeebled. - -Candidly, in what proportion of the real homes of England, as distinct -from the home of a fiction-writer, is the life "beautiful"? In -what proportion does it not rather present the spectacle of an -overburdened mother struggling heroically to live up to her -reputation for gentleness under the strain of ill or wayward children -and an irritating husband? In what proportion are the beautiful homes -of the novel written by spinsters or bachelors, or people who restrict -the number of their children, or men whose posthumous biographies do -not reveal a very sweet home life? I believe it was Carlyle who -originated that fond boast that no nation in the world has a word for -"home" like the English. It was certainly Dickens who gave us the -most touching pictures of domestic tenderness and happiness. How many -mothers of the working and lower middle class do not dread the -holidays, when the children threaten to be near them all day? How many -are capable of training children? How many do not regard a blow as the -supreme moral agency? How many would not welcome the easing of their -burden, and the training of their children by experts? And why in the -world should mothers be likely to have less affection for their -children because they have infinitely less trouble with them, and see -them only in their smiling hours? - -The happiest phase of English home life is, surely, found in those -middle-class families which can send the children away to school for -four-fifths of the year and welcome them home periodically in the -holiday mood. In the vast majority of cases the teacher has to -struggle despairingly against the influence of the home and the -street; for it is to the street that the mother entrusts the child. A -lady (an educational expert) once observed to me that it was -remarkable to find the children in Gaelic districts of Scotland -speaking the purest English. On the contrary, it was wholly natural, -and it points an important pædagogical moral. The children learned -English _from their teachers only_; there was no corrupt English -dialect in the home or village to undo the teacher's lessons. In -other matters besides language the school-lessons are constantly -frustrated outside the school. - -I pass frequently through the stream of children pouring out of a -large and handsome suburban school. It is not in a slum. There are -broad green fields on every side, and there are vast and beautiful -public spaces not far away. But the homes from which many of the -children come are squalid, and the street-scenes, especially in front -of the local inn, are often disgusting. On more than one occasion I -have heard the men openly talk of their practice of unnatural vice. I -have seen a girl of ten watch her intoxicated father misconduct -himself with a prostitute, while the mother--whose attention was -called to the fact by the child, in the mono-syllabic language of the -district--chatted with a neighbour. And I am not surprised to notice -that, when the children burst from school, which they hate, numbers of -them break into foul language, indecent behaviour, and fighting. Their -world, outside the school, is one mighty drag on the teacher's -efforts. When they leave school, with brains half-developed and only -the maxims of ancient Judæa (at which half their world scoffs) to -guide their conduct, when they enter workshops and laundries and join -the company of ring-eyed boys and girls in the first flush of -sex-development, they shed the feeble influence of the school-lessons -in a few months. - -The district I have in mind is a very common type of district: a -healthy, open suburb on the fringe of London, tainted by one of those -older villages in which the poorest workers are apt to congregate. It -has an expensive Church-Institute and numerous chapels. You may see -the thing in almost any part of London, and most other towns. I have a -vivid recollection of passing from a Catholic elementary school and -strict home in Manchester to a large warehouse thirty-five years ago. -There is little change in that respect to-day. A very few years ago a -Manchester boy passed the same way; and a month or two later, his -father told me, he returned home chuckling over a "funny story" -about Christ. The school fails, not from lack of devotion in the -teachers, but because the child learns more in the street, and often -in the home; and these lessons are, somehow, more congenial. - -Now if we are not satisfied with this comparative waste of effort and -sterility of result, we have to consider candidly the ambition of the -educationist. He wants to turn out a young citizen with an active -mind, a sound body, and a character prepared to resist the more -degrading influences of the world he will enter. He cannot carry out -this aim in the case of every child entrusted to him, but he can in -most cases, if the State will help him. He must have his children -properly nourished: neither underfed nor stuffed with coarse food by -ignorant mothers. He must have them seasonably clothed and shod: again -the mothers need instruction and pressure. He must have, not only -drill and more natural forms of exercise, but more control over the -children outside of school-hours; he is already beginning, with great -promise of good, to walk and play with them, to take them to museums, -and so on. He must have adequate medical assistance, and must have the -support of the law in counteracting dirty homes and careless parents. -He must keep the child still a few years longer at school, because a -child only begins to be really educable at thirteen or fourteen. He -must have the encouragement of knowing that the more promising boys -and girls will find the avenue open to higher schools, and that the -community will make some serious provision of mental stimulation for -the adolescent and the adult. And in order to carry out properly this -large and promising scheme of training he must have twice as many -colleagues as he has, so that each may be able to give individual -attention to pupils, and in order that too great demands be not made -on their hours of rest. - -But where are we to find the very large sums of money which would be -required for carrying out such a scheme? I wish everybody in England -realised that we should have the funds to carry out this scheme in its -entirety, in its most advanced developments, if we abolished -militarism; that if we had done this before 1914, we should have had, -in the cost of the war, the funds to carry out such a scheme two or -three times over. We have to reflect also whether the increased -prosperity of England would not pay the cost. There are other -considerations which I give later, but I would add here at least a -word about experience in other lands. At New York and Chicago I -visited schools--elementary and secondary, but both free--with which -we have nothing to compare in this country: palatial structures with -superb equipment and devoted staffs. Yet when I asked ratepayers how -they contrived to spend so lavishly on education, the three or four -public men I asked were so little conscious of a burden that they were -unable to explain satisfactorily where the funds came from! - -We are, however, making progress here and there,--Bradford, for -instance, has had the courage to be quite Socialistic in its care of -the young,--and the triple ideal of education is generally, if at -times reluctantly, recognised. As far as the education of the body is -concerned, in fact, we have no ground for quarrelling with our -teachers, whatever we may say of some of our educational authorities. -Medical inspection, drill, hygiene, play, excursions, feeding, etc., -are discussed very conscientiously at every meeting of teachers, and -the reforms proposed are more or less admitted in all places, even -under the London County Council. The teachers themselves often go far -beyond their prescribed tasks in endeavouring to help the children. In -places they yield part of their necessary midday rest to attend to the -feeding of poor children: which I found admirably, and most cheerfully -and expeditiously, done in Chicago (where 1500 children at one school -were quietly and excellently fed in thirty minutes) by a committee of -ladies of the district. They give Saturdays and holidays for -conducting visits to museums or excursions, or for controlling sports. -What is chiefly needed is that the authorities should deal stringently -with backward sectarian schools, and provide a very much larger supply -of teachers and servants. The municipal authority of the richest city -in the world--the London County Council--is scandalously stingy and -reactionary in this respect. - -When we turn to the question of educating the intelligence, it is not -possible to approve so cordially. No one, assuredly, can fail to -appreciate the zeal and efforts of educationists and teachers, -especially in the last few decades. Hardly any body of professional -men and women among us, certainly no body of public servants, has a -deeper and sounder ambition to conduct its work on the most effective -lines. A vast literature is published, frequent congresses are held, -and the science of psychology is assiduously cultivated. One must -appreciate also the fatal limitations of the teacher's activity; as -long as we withdraw children from him at the age of fourteen, -education is impossible. It may seem, therefore, ungracious or unwise -to criticise,--though I am not wholly a layman in regard to -education,--but there is at least one feature of our school life to -which I would draw serious critical attention. - -The general public is apt to express this feature resentfully by -saying that the modern teacher "crams." Better informed critics -have put it that modern education is little more than a process of -"encephalisation," or the imprinting of certain facts on the -child's brain almost as mechanically as the indenting of marks on -the cylinder of a gramophone. Each of these criticisms implies an -injustice. Educationists and teachers have, of course, discussed this -very point for decades, and the present system is the formulation of -their deliberate judgment. They still differ amongst themselves as to -the proportion of memory-work and stimulation-work, but it is too late -in the day (if accurate at all) to tell teachers that to "educate" -means "to draw out" the child's "faculties," not to put in. -Every elementary teacher knows that he must train the child to think -as well as furnish it with positive information. The point one may -legitimately raise is whether the general educational practice -represents a fair adjustment of the two functions. - -It is essential in such disputes to have clear principles. What is the -aim of education? The current phrase, "to make good citizens," is -far too vague. A good citizen is, in a large employer's mind, a man -who will work for two pounds a week and not annoy wealthier people by -demanding more: in a clergyman's mind, one who goes to church. The -point is serious and relevant, because there is a growing tendency -among the middle and upper class to insist on a return to the ideal of -the old Church of England school society: the children must not be -educated in such a way that they will aspire above the station to -which the Almighty has called them. As, however, the educationist will -probably reply at once that his duty is to do all in his power to -promote intelligence during such period as the State thinks advisable, -we need not discuss the larger ideal of developing the child's -powers on general humanitarian grounds. - -But glance at the manuals which are used in our schools, and consider -whether we have as yet realised the true ideal of education. These -manuals, and the methods employed, are the outcome of a hundred years -of critical discussion, yet I venture to say that they need to be -entirely rewritten. I pass over the infant-schools and earlier -standards, where the first general ideas are carefully, and on the -whole judiciously, implanted. As soon, however, as the child enters -its teens, it is painfully overloaded with memory-work. I take, for -example, the manuals of geography and history which are used in -educating children of eleven in a first-class London secondary school. -They are crammed with information which will never be of the least use -to one man in ten thousand, and which we have no right whatever to -impose on the young brain with so much necessary work to do. - -The manual of early English history which I have before me is a -characteristically modern production. Instead of the grim old -paragraphs, in alternate large and small type, on which the eye of the -child nearly always gazes with reluctance, there are vivid sketches of -life in successive ages. There is danger, perhaps, that the child will -pass to the opposite extreme, and take the manual as a story-book, a -work of ephemeral interest; at least careful guidance will be needed -to enable it to select the necessary material which is to be -memorised. But the chief defect still is the overloading of the pages -with matter of no serious usefulness. The doings of Ethelbert and -Ethelfrith and Redwald and Penda and Offa, whose very names bewilder -the young mind, are compressed into a few forbidding paragraphs, -instead of being relegated to the University. Later come Ethelwulf and -Osburh and Ethelbald and Ethelbert; and Sweyn Forkbeard and Olaf -Trygvasson and Guhilda; and Rhodri and Llywelyn and Griffith ap Rees -and Own Gwynedd and Egfrith and Malcolm Canmore and John Balliol. How -many of us know, or need to know, a word about them, and their -families, and their battles? Then the French wars are told in detail, -and the pages bristle with dates and French names and genealogies; and -the Wars of the Roses introduce a new series of repellent and useless -names and dates. The child, in a word, is enormously overburdened with -stuff which we adults would refuse to commit to memory or even to -read. Yet this is a very modern manual, the last word in the -adaptation of history to the mind of a child of ten or eleven. - -The manual of European geography, also, is one of the most modern and -enlightened that a teacher can choose, but it imposes a mass of -pedantic and useless knowledge. Isotherms and isobars and the freezing -of the Oder and Vistula and Danube; the navigability of the Ebro and -Guadalquiver, and the wheat-growing areas of France and Spain, and the -industries of Lille and Roubaix and Magdeburg and Lombardy and Smyrna; -in a word, fully one-third of the details in the little manual--the -details which it is most difficult to remember, which tax the -child's brain most, and will be forgotten soonest and with least -loss--ought not to have been inserted. The whole plan is academic and -pedantic: it is built on the supposition that the child must have a -summary of the kind of knowledge which a geographical expert would -have to master. And in later years the child must laboriously cover -the whole globe with the same unnecessary attention to useless -details. - -In mathematics, at least, the same criticism will hold. Geometry is, -of course, no longer a mere task of memorisation; but the positive -knowledge of problems is not of the least use, save in a few -exceptional cases, and the training of the mind might be achieved by -lessons in natural science. In natural science itself one might -quarrel with much of the material given: not one in ten thousand, for -instance, will even remember in later years the elements of botany. -But at least we are, in giving scientific information, training the -young to inquire into the nature of positive reality and initiating -them to branches of knowledge in which they can easily advance in -later years, since we have so fine a popular literature of science, -and the advance will be a considerable gain in their whole mental -outlook. It is chiefly in regard to history and geography that time -and labour might be spared, and more leisure given for ensuring that -the child will assimilate the knowledge imparted. Mental energy should -not be wasted in mastering an immense collection of facts which, -experience shows, are certain to be forgotten within a few years. - -I may also recall that, when we choose to carry out the elementary -reform of abolishing the plurality of tongues, a vast economy will be -made in the curriculum, and really useful knowledge will be imparted -more thoroughly and with finer attention to the texture of the -child's brain. The academic plea, that there is excellent training -in a thorough study of Latin and Greek, may be freely granted. But -there is just as excellent a training in the thorough study of such -branches of science as are fitted for the school, and the positive -information gained is permanently useful. - -If we thus eliminate languages and simplify geography and history we -give the modern teacher a more hopeful opportunity. It is surely the -universal experience that we forget nine-tenths of the geographical -details we learn at school, and we find little inconvenience in -re-learning such as we need to master in later years. A judicious -outline-scheme, with more physiography and less of useless detail, and -a fuller account of one's national geography (not because it -describes the child's country, but because it is practical -information) would suffice. The remainder, or part of it, could be -imparted in technical training for commerce. History should be wholly -remodelled. It is ludicrous to-day to make the child grow pale and -worn over the past royal families and wars of England, and dismiss the -general history of the race in a page or two. A fine scheme of the -history, and even the prehistory and origin, of the human race, with -so much fuller information about the child's own country as is -useful for the understanding of its institutions and monuments, could -be imparted in less time, with more interest, and with far greater -profit. The patriotic sham deeply vitiates our scheme of instruction -and makes the training of the child scandalously one-sided and -exacting. Germany has recently shown us the pernicious results of this -political perversion of education. - -Passing to the moral education of children, we at once find it cruelly -distorted and enfeebled by a religious sham of the least defensible -nature. Such moralists as Kant and Emerson hardly exaggerated the -human importance of moral law, however much they failed to understand -its human significance. Character is the pivot on which life turns. -The general diffusion of fine qualities of character would transform -the earth, quite apart from economic and political reform, and lead to -a speedier settlement of our industrial and international -difficulties. It is therefore of supreme importance to train the will -or character of the child from its earliest years. Yet there is no -other branch of our education, and hardly any other branch of our -life, in which we tolerate so crude and ludicrous a pretence of work. - -The education authority of the Metropolis of England would, one -supposes, have the advantage of the finest expert advice in the world. -Enter one of the thousands of schools under its control, however, and -ask how the training of character is conducted. A teacher informs you -that at college he has learned only to impart "Biblical -knowledge." He will show you a scheme of lessons founded on the Old -and New Testament. The younger the child, the more preposterous the -lesson. In the lower standards the child must learn the story of the -Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, etc. It is still too young to imagine -that its teacher may, at the command of our education authorities, be -grossly deceiving it, or to perceive that these ancient Babylonian -legends contain no particular incentive to virtue. When it passes to -the higher standards it is initiated to some equally remarkable -stories about the early history of mankind and the early conduct of -the Deity. The teacher rarely believes these things, and it may be -assumed that men like Mr. Sidney Webb, who voted for this scheme of -education in the L.C.C., do not. If the child has intelligence enough -to raise the question of veracity, it must be snubbed or deceived. A -London teacher told me that on one occasion, when he had described -some of the remarkable proceedings of the Israelites in ancient -Palestine, a precocious youngster asked: "Please, sir, is it -true?" Our education authorities forbid him to reply to such a -question. Indeed, his headmaster was a Nonconformist (very zealous for -Bible lessons), and would find a way to punish any departure from the -appointed untruths. - -The lessons from the New Testament are, it is true, devoid of this -atmosphere of Oriental animalism, ferocity, and superstition which -clings to the Old Testament lesson, but here again the teacher is -forced to violate the elementary principles of education. He must -gravely tell the story of the miraculous birth, the crucifixion, and -the resurrection of Christ. He probably knows that some of the most -learned divines in England and other countries regard these stories as -false, but he must deliberately and solemnly tell the young that -Christ was God and that these things are written in the "Word of -God." He must repeat parables which we know to have been borrowed -(and often spoiled in the borrowing) from the Jewish rabbis, yet teach -that this was the unique feature of Christ's preaching. He must use -all his ingenuity to wring a moral lesson out of the parables of the -workers in the vineyard, the royal banquet, and so on. He must keep up -this elaborate deception of the child until it leaves his care; and he -knows that, in nine cases out of ten in London or any large city, the -child is already hearing on all sides sneers at these ancient myths, -and laughing at the system which inculcates them in the name of all -that is most sacred. - -The aim of our London authorities, and education authorities generally -in England, is not to train character, but to teach the contents of -the Bible. Why a civic authority should include the teaching of the -Bible no man knows; and whether a civic authority can be indifferent -to the truth or untruth of the lessons it imposes few seem to ask. Mr. -Sidney Webb, endorsing these lessons, said that the Bible was "great -literature"; and scores of our parochial legislators, who were not -generally known to admire great literature (but _were_ known to have -numbers of Nonconformist constituents), fervently repeated the phrase. -Does the child appreciate or hear a single word about the literary -qualities of the Bible? Does a literary lesson need to be a deliberate -lesson in untruth? Can we find no great literature which has not the -taint of untruth? - -Dr. Clifford says that these lessons tend to make "good citizens." -It is not at first sight apparent why we should go to the literature -of an ancient, mendacious, polygamous, and bloodthirsty tribe for -lessons in citizenship in a modern civilisation. Let us suppose, -however, that the ingenious teacher has wrung a moral of truthfulness, -fraternity, respect for women, self-reliance, and universal justice -out of these peculiar records of ancient Judæa. Follow the child, in -imagination, into the later years of citizenship. He hardly leaves the -school before he learns that the whole Biblical scheme is very -generally ridiculed, and is rejected even by large numbers of learned -theologians. Before many years, at least, he is fairly sure to learn -this. The prescriptions of the Sermon on the Mount he, of course, -never had the slightest intention of observing. The teacher, even -while he reads the quixotic counsels, knows, and possibly notes with -approval, that the boy's code is: "If any smite thee on the one -cheek, smite him forthwith on both." But the boy now learns that -from the Creation to the Resurrection the whole story is seriously -disputed and is rejected by the majority of well-educated people. He -looks back on his "Bible lessons" and his teacher with derision, -and he discards the whole authority of his code of conduct. Surely an -admirable foundation for virtue and citizenship! - -Into the larger question of the relation of religious education and -crime I cannot enter here. I have shown elsewhere that France, -Victoria, and New Zealand, the countries with longest experience of -secular education, have the best record among civilised nations in the -reduction of crime. The carelessness of clerical writers as to the -truth of their statements on this subject is appalling. There is not a -tittle of reason in criminal statistics, or any other exact -indications of national health, for retaining religious lessons in our -schools. They are there merely because the clergy find it conducive to -their prestige to have their sacred book enthroned with honour in the -national scheme of education. As in the case of divorce, they ask us -to maintain immorality in the name of religion. German schools are -saturated with religious teaching, yet we have seen the issue of it -all. - -For one hundred years our English school-system has been hampered and -perverted by this clerical insistence on religious lessons. Parents, -they sometimes say, desire it; but when the Trades Union Congress, the -only large body of parents which ever pronounced on the subject, -repeatedly voted for secular education, by overwhelming majorities, -the clergy, through the minority of their followers, could only secure -the exclusion of the subject from the agenda. Neither do the majority -of teachers desire it; while educationists, as a whole, resent this -grievous complication of their work. Nothing but the complete -secularisation of all schools receiving funds from the nation or -municipality will enable us to advance. The clergy must do their own -work on their own premises. The moral pretext is a thin disguise of an -effort to use the nation's resources and authority for the purpose -of attaching children to the churches. - -Writers on the subject are not wholly agreed whether we ought to -substitute moral lessons for the discarded Bible lessons. We can in -such a matter proceed only on probabilities, and it seems to me that -judicious lessons for the training of character are very desirable. I -do not so much mean abstract or direct lessons on the various -qualities of character. If such lessons (on truthfulness, honesty, -manliness, etc.) were tactfully and sensibly conducted, they could be -of great service. There is really not much danger of turning the -average British schoolboy into a prig. But indirect lessons, -especially from history and biography, should be more effective. - -In either case our teachers would need special training for the -lessons, and no philosophic or religious or anti-religious view of -moral principles should be admitted. Experience has surely shown how -little use there is in giving children a "categorical imperative," -or a set of arbitrary commandments, or an æsthetic lesson on -"modesty." You cannot in one hour teach the child to think, and in -the next expect it to accept your instruction without thinking, -because you are not prepared to give reasons for your commands. It is -sometimes forgotten that even children share the mental awakening of -our age, and must be treated wisely. The American or the Australian -child well illustrates the change that is taking place. It is -increasingly dangerous to give children dogmatic or mystic instruction -in rules of conduct, nor is it in the least necessary to base this -important part of their training on disputable grounds. Every quality -of character that is inculcated may be related to the child's actual -or future experience of life, and will find an ample sanction therein. -Life is full of material for such lessons: material far richer and -easier of assimilation than the doings of an ancient Oriental people -with a different code of morals. Let these lessons of history and -contemporary life be developed, let the child learn in plain human -speech the social significance of justice and honour, avoiding -namby-pamby dissertations on the beauty of virtue, and there will be -placed in the mind of the young, not an exotic plant which the child -will be tempted to eradicate, but a germ which will grow and bear -fruit under the influence of its own experience. - -The modern ideal of education further implies that the State shall -provide higher tuition for those youths and maidens to whom it will be -profitable to impart it. Scholastic evolution is advancing so rapidly -in this direction that the ideal hardly needs vindication. Seventeen -hundred years ago such a "ladder of education" existed in Europe; -from the municipally-endowed elementary school the promising youth -could pass, through secondary colleges, to the imperial schools at -Rome. Had that model been retained and improved instead of being -abandoned for fourteen centuries, Europe would be in an immeasurably -greater state of efficiency than it is. We are restoring and improving -the pagan model, and there are signs that in time we shall have a -complete system of secondary, technical, and higher education, quite -apart from the schools in which the children of more or less wealthy -parents learn their traditional virtues and vices. If we have also -some means by which able children whose talent has escaped the -academic eye (of which we have many classical instances) may in later -years have a chance of recognition, we shall exploit the intelligence -of the race with splendid results. - -The cost of this great reform need not intimidate us. Enormous sums of -money have been given (by men like Mr. Carnegie) or bequeathed for the -purpose, and the admirable practice will continue. But we need a -searching revision of educational endowments, foundations, -scholarships, etc. There is strong reason to suspect that estates -which are now of great value are not applied to the scholastic -purposes for which they were intended, or are badly administered, or -are used in giving gratuitous or cheap education to the children of -comfortable parents who secure favour or influence. A consolidation of -all the endowments which had not in their origin an express sectarian -purpose would provide a fund to which the State and municipal -authorities need add little. The scheme would bring some order into -our chaos of schools and colleges, and, while the more snobbish -establishments would continue to preserve their pupils from the -society of the children of tradesfolk, and would waste valuable -resources on uncultivable minds, the youth of the nation generally, of -both sexes, would be developed to the full extent of its capacity. -These things have a monetary value. A distinguished historical writer -told me that, on sending his son to Sandhurst, he proposed that they -should study together the campaigns of Napoleon. The youth presently -informed him that the traditions of Sandhurst did not allow them to do -serious work outside the general routine. A few years later we heard -the details of our South African War. - -It will be a part of this increased efficiency to rid our secondary -and higher schools of clerical domination. It is futile to say that -the clergyman must represent morals and religion in the school. His -record as a moralist during fifteen hundred years does not recommend -his services. Even to-day public schools which retain the tradition of -clerical masters are deplorable from the moral point of view. Some of -them are nurseries of a vice which, unless it be discontinued when the -youth goes out into the world, may bring on him one of the most -degrading sentences of our penal law. The clerical _method_ of -character-training--one admits, of course, great occasional -personalities--has little influence on these things. Public-school -boys, and especially young men at our universities, know that every -syllable which the preacher addresses to them is disputed, and no -other ground of right and healthy conduct is, as a rule, impressed on -them. Many will know that the grossest opinion of the clergy -themselves is current in our public schools and older universities, -and is embodied in numbers of scurrilous stories. The position of the -clergyman in our educational world is false. He is there for the same -reason that the Bible is in the elementary school: in the interest of -the Churches. We have improved mental education enormously since it -ceased to be a monopoly of the clergy. Possibly we will make a similar -improvement in character-training; we can hardly do it with less -success than they have done. - - - CHAPTER IX. - THE EDUCATION OF THE ADULT - -IF it be granted that it is the interest and the duty of a nation to -develop the intelligence of its people, we must conclude that the work -is only half done, or not half done, by even an ideal system of what -is commonly called education. I am assuming that a time will come when -no youth or maiden will enter workshop or office before the age of -seventeen, if not eighteen; and that the better endowed minority of -our children will, without regard to their private resources, be -promoted to secondary, technical, and higher schools. This minority -will, on the whole, need no further attention. Cultural interest and -professional stimulation will ensure that their studies continue. But -the majority will fall lamentably short of the ideal of developed and -alert intelligence. The added three or four years will be enormously -valuable to the teacher, but in the majority of cases the intellectual -interest will still be so feeble that the distractions of life will at -once extinguish it. - -If we speak of our actual world, not of an ideal world, this fact is -too patent to need proving. Forty-five years ago a band of enthusiasts -fought for the establishment of universal elementary education. The -survivors of that band confess that the splendid results they -anticipated have not been secured. One is, indeed, tempted sometimes -to wonder whether there was not more zeal for culture among the -workers half a century ago than there is to-day. When you listen to a -conversation, of workers or of average middle-class people, on -politics or theology or some other absorbing topic, you are astounded -at the slender amount of personal thinking and the slavery to phrases -which they have heard. Their minds seem to resemble the screen of a -kaleidoscope, on which the coloured phrases they have read in journals -or cheap literature weave automatic patterns. I speak, of course, of -the mass. I have given hundreds of scientific lectures to keen -audiences of working men, and I know that tens of thousands of them -have excellent collections of familiar books. But the result of -forty-five years of education is far from satisfactory. It was thought -that, when the people learned to read, and the ideas of an Emerson or -a Darwin could be appropriated by any man of moderate endowment, the -level of the race would rise materially. It has not risen as much as -was expected. The phrases are learned and repeated: the ideas are not -vitally assimilated, because the intellect is not sufficiently -developed. - -Two classes of people will impatiently retort that there is no need -for further development. One class consists of those who dread a -higher intelligence in the workers because it leads to discontent with -their condition. To which one may reply that this concern comes too -late. One needs little intelligence to perceive the inequalities of -the distribution of wealth. The workers of the world have perceived -it, and, although only an extreme Socialist minority demands -equalisation, the mass of the workers demand a higher reward. Midway -between Australia and England, on the deck of a liner, I heard a group -of middle-class men and women contrasting the menace of the Australian -workers with the industrial content of the mother-country. We landed, -to find from the journals that the whole United Kingdom was punctuated -by strikes, agitations, and demands. It is too late. A distinguished -Belgian prelate was taken into a large foundry, and, observing the -workers, he impulsively cried: "What a slave's life!" "Hush, -they will hear you," said the manager. In repeating the experience -he added: "They have heard: it is too late." It will be better now -if, in the industrial struggle of the future, there is intelligence as -well as principle on both sides. If any large proportion of work in -the human economy requires the sacrifice of the intelligence, there is -something wrong with the work. - -Curiously enough, the other class of people who are impatient of the -design to stimulate their minds consists of the mass of the workers -themselves. After eight or nine or ten hours of heavy muscular work -every day, they say, they have no inclination or fitness for serious -literature, serious lectures, or serious art. They prefer a drink, a -bioscope, a music-hall. Eight hours' work, eight hours' play, -eight hours' sleep; that is the ideal. A very natural and -symmetrical ideal, but--it is just the ideal which "the -capitalist" wishes them to cultivate, and this might suggest -reflection. Someone will do the thinking while they play. Democratic -government is a mischief and a blunder unless Demos is capable of -thinking. If the workers of the world have an ambition to control -their destinies, they must realise that their destinies are things too -large and complex and important to be controlled by men with sleepy -brains. There is no solution of the broad social problem of this -planet which does not imply that every adult man and woman, of normal -powers, shall be alert and informed and self-assertive enough to take -an intelligent part in its administration. - -Therefore, it seems to many that a scheme of education which ceases to -operate at the age of fourteen, which teaches children to read and has -no further concern with what they read, which impresses on their -cortex a mass of facts of no utility or stimulation, is not a -fulfilment of a nation's duty, or a proper consideration of a -nation's interest. The grander lessons of history, the more -impressive truths of science, the vital features of economics and -sociology, the ennobling characters of fine art, cannot be even -faintly impressed on the young mind. Yet they can be impressed on the -minds of nearly all adults, and it would be an incalculable gain to -the race if they were. What is being done, and what might be done, to -effect this? - -The nation at present leaves it to commercial interest and to -philanthropy to carry out, in some measure, this important function, -and we may at once eliminate the commercial interest. It supplies, at -a proper profit, what is demanded. A minority ask for cheap works of -science and art and history, and several admirable series of manuals -and serial publications are supplied. A majority, an overwhelming -majority, asks only to be entertained, and there is a mighty flood of -novels and amusing works, a rich crop of music-halls and -bioscope-shows and theatres and skating rinks. It will readily be -understood that, regarding happiness as the ultimate ideal, I regard -entertainment as a proper part of life. The comedian and the -story-teller and the professional football-player are rendering good -service, and it is intellectual snobbery to murmur that they "merely -entertain" people. A good deal of nonsense is written about sport -and entertainment. Many of us can, with pleasant ease, suspend a -severely intellectual task for a few hours to witness a first-class -football match. One wonders if some of the ascetics who speak about -"mudded oafs" and "the football craze" are aware that the game -(except for professional players) occupies merely an hour and a half a -week (or alternate week) for little more than half a year. - -The mischief is that so much of our entertainment appeals to and -fosters a state of mind or taste which does exclude culture. We have -to-day an army of puritan scouts, watching our music-halls and -cinematograph films, our picture-cards and novels, our open spaces by -night and our bathing-beaches by day, calculating minutely what amount -of dress or undress or sexual allusion they may permit. Certainly we -need coercion in these matters. No one who moves amongst our average -people, in any rank of society, can fail to recognise that there would -be in time a volcanic outpour of sexuality if we did not impose -restriction. Whether this chaste pruriency of the modern Churches is -an admirable thing, and whether its hirelings are a desirable -supplement to the police-force, need not be discussed here; but what -amuses one is their intense zeal to detect the narrowest fringe of -impropriety and their utter obtuseness to graver matters. I have -sometimes, when waiting before a lecture in the dressing-room of a -variety theatre, been confronted with a notice that "the curtain -will be rung down on any artist who says 'Damn' or mentions the -lodger," or, more candidly (in the Colonies): "Don't swear. We -don't care a damn, but the public does." The general public would, -if it were consulted, probably make the same reply as the framers of -the notice, and would blame the police for the restriction of liberty. -There is, in a word, an appalling poverty of taste in the general -public, and it pays the purveyor of entertainment to adapt his wares -to it as far as the police will permit. To this lamentable lack of -taste and culture (in the broad sense) officials and moralists are -entirely indifferent as long as the _comédienne_ does not refer to -the seventh commandment. The public may be as ignorant and vulgar as -they like, but they must not give expression to a natural effect of -this. - -The music-hall and the bioscope are the great academies of our people -to-day, and their work is largely stupefying. Sentimental songs of the -most vapid description alternate with patriotic songs of a medieval -crudeness and humorous songs which might have appealed to a -prehistoric intelligence. Bloodthirsty melodramas, sensational scenes, -and infinite variations of "The girl who did what we are forbidden -to talk about," evoke and inflame elementary emotions at the lowest -grade of culture. Clergymen give certificates of high moral efficacy -to crude representations of passion in high life which are designed to -appeal to raw feelings. The posters alone--the eccentric costumes and -daubed faces and attempts at novelty in the way of leering--warn away -people of moderate taste or intelligence. The bioscope is almost as -bad. Apart from a few excellent travel and scenic and scientific -pictures, the show is a mass of crude faking and boorish horse-play -which presupposes an elementary intelligence in the spectators. -Pictorial post-cards add to the monstrosities and puerilities of this -kind of public education, and a large proportion of the stories -published, especially in the periodicals which are read by girls and -boys and uneducated women, fall in the same category. We may trust -that the idea will not occur to anyone of making a collection of our -picture-cards, films, music-hall posters, novelties, etc., for -preservation as typical amusements of the twentieth century. - -It is stupid to watch this lamentable exposure of our low average of -culture week by week with complete indifference until more -underclothing is displayed than we think proper. The bioscope and -music-hall--I speak of the majority--are not merely entertaining; they -are undoing the work of the educator. They are fostering the raw and -primitive emotions which it is the task of education to refine and -bring under control, debasing public taste, and appealing to a -standard which is essentially unintellectual. The idea that fun may be -utterly stupid and crude, provided it is "clean," is the idea of a -narrow-minded fanatic, an enemy of society. - -When we pass to the next cultural level of entertainment--the better -music-hall, the metropolitan type of theatre, the concert, the novel, -etc.--we have a vast provision of entertainment which amuses or -interests without cultural prejudice; rising at times to a positive -measure of artistic education or intellectual stimulation. Two things -only need be noticed here. The first is the stupidity of the kind of -censorship which we tolerate; of which little need be said, since it -is generally recognised. The amateur moral censorship of art reaches -the culmination of its absurdity in our dramatic inquisition. The -dramatist may deal with sex-passion as pruriently and provokingly as -he likes, provided he leaves enough to the spectator's facile -imagination; but he must not attempt to raise love as an intellectual -issue. Our people may feel love: they must not think about it as a -serious problem. - -The other, and more needed observation, regards the novel. There are -novels of fine artistic value, like those of Phillpotts: novels of -great intellectual use, like those of Wells: and novels of a general -and more subtle educational value, like those of Meredith. There are -novels which, like the melodrama, counteract education by their low -standard of art and intelligence, and there are novels--the great -majority--which entertain without prejudice. Since we have as much -right to be entertained as to be instructed, novel-reading is a normal -part of a normal life. Seeing, however, that a very large proportion -of the community read nothing but novels, it has been felt that the -novel might be used as a vehicle of instruction, and the didactic or -historical novel has become an institution. Many believe that they are -being educated when they read this literature. - -Against this comforting assumption it is necessary to protest. Even -the greatest historical novelists, Dumas and Scott, have taken -remarkable liberties with the known facts, and added to the picture of -the time a mass of imaginative detail. Many historical novels, like -_Quo Vadis_ or Kingsley's _Hypatia_, misrepresent personalities or -periods for controversial purposes; and the bulk of modern historical -novels are worthless jumbles of fact and imagination. It is, as a -rule, the same with the sociological novel. You must know the facts in -advance--you must know where the facts end and the fiction begins--or -else merely regard the book as a form of entertainment. Lately I read -a serious historical work, by a distinguished writer, in which Hypatia -(who was fifty or sixty years old when she was murdered) is described -as a "girl-philosopher"; clearly because Kingsley, for controversial -purposes, thought fit in his novel to make her a young and rather -foolish maiden. Thousands of people take their convictions from -"novels with a purpose," especially religious or sociological -novels, without reflecting that the author may legitimately give them -either fact or fiction. Such novels are often profoundly mischievous. -A conscientious didactic novelist like Mr. Wells aims rather at -raising issues and stimulating reflection, and in this Mr. Wells has -done splendid service. Others have done equal disservice, and have -used artificially constructed characters for the purpose of raising -prejudice against certain ideas, or have misled by a calculated -mixture of fact and fiction. It was in recommending to the public one -of these novels--an exceptionally silly and crude piece of work--that -the Bishop of London described Christianity as "woman's best -friend." - -Religious literature is particularly offensive in this respect, but I -will give special consideration to it later. Our press-criticism of -books is a very imperfect system of checking the vagaries and -prejudices of authors. The criticisms are very frequently marked by -ignorance of the subject and by personal or doctrinal hostility to the -author, while the more learned and conscientious journals often show -the most ludicrous pedantry. I once published a novel, pseudonymously, -and was amused to read in a London weekly, which takes great pride in -the smartness of its reviews, that the author had neither an -elementary knowledge of the art of writing nor an elementary -acquaintance with the subject on which he wrote. I had already at that -time written about twenty volumes, and I had had twelve years' -intimate experience of the monastic life with which the book was -concerned. Mr. Clement Shorter, not knowing the author, had generously -described the book as "a brilliant novel." On another occasion an -historical work of mine was gravely censured, though no specific -errors were noted in it, by our leading literary organ, on the ground -that I was not an expert on the period. I looked up the same -journal's critique of a work written on the same historical period -by an academic authority, and published by his university, and I found -that, though there were dozens of errors in the work, it had passed -the censor with full honours. I add with pleasure that some of the -most generous notices of my works have appeared in papers (such as -_The Daily Telegraph_ and _The Spectator_) to which my ideas must be -repugnant. But most literary men agree with me that reviewing is, to a -large extent, prejudiced and incompetent, and few of us would cross a -room to read ordinary press-notices of our books. - -One might extend this criticism to the general work of the press as -the great popular educator. We must, however, reflect that the press -is hampered by restrictions which the public ought to bear in mind: a -journal is always a commercial transaction with a particular section -of the public, and it is generally pledged to political partisanship. -It is only just to remark that this materially restricts the -educational ambition of many journalists. The public themselves are to -blame that a large section of our press devotes so much space to -sensational murders, adulteries, burglaries, royal births and -marriages, wars and other crimes and follies. Sunday journals often -contain twenty columns of this rubbish, and the worst parts of it are, -with the most disgusting hypocrisy, thrust into prominence by -especially large head-lines announcing "A Painful Case." One -imagines the working man spending five or six hours of the Sabbath -reading this sort of stuff. Great and grave things, which he ought to -know, are happening all over the world, but he must have sharp eyes if -he is to catch the obscure little paragraphs which--if there is any -reference at all--tell him how many have been put to death in Russia -in the last quarter, or how the republican experiment fares in -Portugal, or how democracy advances in Australia or the United States. -The space is needed for pictures of burned mansions and notorious -murderers and the commonplace relatives of politicians, for verbatim -reports of divorce and criminal cases, for inquests and royal -processions, and for the magnificent speeches of Cabinet Ministers and -would-be Cabinet Ministers. - -This stricture applies to the press generally. How far it sacrifices -to these meretricious purposes the serious function of educating the -public has been painfully impressed on us by recent experience. Only -one or two journals in England surpassed our drowsy politicians in -sagacity and foresight. Though an extensive reader of German -literature (scientific and historical), it had never been my business -to follow political or military utterances; yet, when the war broke -out and I looked back on Germany's enormous output in this -department, I realised that there had been in London for a year or two -enough German literature to convince any moderate observer that war -was fast approaching--and this was only a fragment of an enormously -larger literature. Our press had ridiculed the one or two men and -journals who warned the public of the danger. Further, when it -transpired that our Government had met the crisis with painful -slowness and inefficiency, nearly the whole press again conspired to -check criticism, and it is probable that when the war is over the -press will unite with the Churches in cultivating a foolish and -dangerous contentment on the part of the public. Our press is, in -fact, very largely an instrument of our corrupt party-system. It never -initiates reform, and it mirrors, day by day, all the crimes and -follies and maladies of our social order without the least resentment -or the faintest suggestion of reconstruction. Journals are constantly -appearing with the professed intention of correcting these defects, -yet they are almost invariably spoiled by illiberalism in one or more -departments of their work, or by gross exaggerations, hysterical -language, or impracticable proposals. - -All this is a reflection of the generally low state of public culture, -and it will not alter until we devote serious care to the education of -the general intelligence. We begin at school to cultivate the -child's imagination, though it is the quality of a child's mind -which least requires stimulating and is most in need of subordinating -to intelligence. In later years, when the feeble intellectual -stimulation we have given is exhausted, we have to appeal to the -imagination or go unheard. "I have not read a book since I left -school," a music-hall artist observed to me. At twenty-five he had -become incapable of doing more than look at illustrations, as he had -done in his childhood. We go on until we make the imagination itself -feeble on its constructive side. Miles of generally dauby and -grotesque posters line our streets; tons of the trashiest literature -for the young are discharged from marble palaces in the neighbourhood -of Fleet Street; novels multiply until the general public takes the -words author and novelist to be synonymous; and the daily organ of the -millions tends more and more to be a collection of pictures of -unimportant events and persons, with a very slender and peculiar -quantity of news. - -If we agree that democracy will advance until the majority rule in -reality, and not merely in theory, these things must concern us. It is -of little use to point to the occasional periodical with small -circulation which endeavours to educate, to the occasional educative -column in more important journals, or to the occasional lecture or -serious concert or drama. The broad fact remains that our future -rulers are increasingly encouraged to refrain from mental cultivation, -to mistake an appeal to the imagination for knowledge, and to debase -their taste more and more with raw representations of crime and -passion. The working man reads with indignation of fashionable ladies -struggling to find a place in court when a man is being tried for a -series of sordid murders; and the working man then reads, day after -day, a three-column verbatim report of the trial, and regrets that -there is not more of it. - -In order to meet this grave public need an earlier generation invented -night-schools and Mechanics' Institutes. Many of these still do -useful work, but their number shrinks rather than increases. The -Co-operative Movement, again, set up in the early days a fine ambition -to educate its adult members, but this ambition has not been generally -sustained in the vast modern movement. Hundreds of lecture-societies -were founded, and hundreds (about seven hundred in Great Britain, I -believe) exist to-day and do some excellent work; but many of the -societies which adhered most faithfully to the educational ideal are -in difficulties or extinct. The travel-lecture or funny lecture and -the "popular" concert encroach more and more on the serious -programme. Free libraries were another hope of the reformers of the -last generation, and they are now endowed by millionaires and -maintained by municipalities. They exhibit, perhaps, the saddest -perversion of social ambition. Neither Mr. Carnegie nor any serious -municipality thinks it a duty to provide gratuitous entertainment, but -at least two-thirds of their resources are really devoted to this. The -enormously greater part of the work of free libraries is to beguile -the idle hours of young men and the idle days of young women with -novels that rarely contain a particle of intellectual stimulation. - -Public museums were another device for educating the mass of the -people, and they have largely failed. There has been in recent years a -little more regard for the public, as well as for students, but it is -still painful to see crowds passing with bovine eyes amidst our -accumulated treasures. The grouping and labelling are still too -academic: the general scheme and the immense wealth of detail daze the -eye of the inexpert. More guides and lecturers, in touch with and -informally accessible to the public, and a closer association with -University Extension and Gilchrist and other lectures, are very much -needed. Saturday afternoon in the British Museum is a melancholy -spectacle of wasted wealth. A small model museum, designed solely for -the education of the general public, would be more useful in this -respect than our magnificent national museum. Unfortunately, the small -museums copy the academic defects of the larger. The curator of one, -on whom I urged the needs of the public, replied wearily: "Well, it -will take me three years to arrange my Cephalopods, and then I will -see what I can do." - -We need a comprehensive and serious organisation and development of -our resources for educating the adult. Our Education Department needs -to throw out a new wing with the purpose of preventing the utter waste -of its work upon young children. Institutions like the British Museum -ought to be relieved of the control of the Archbishop of Canterbury -and one or two other somnolent gentlemen, and made the centre of a -splendid and energetic system of popular instruction and stimulation. -From such centres the educational officials (as distinct from learned -curators and youths from Oxford and Cambridge who look upon the public -as a nuisance) might issue attractive invitations and publications, -and be prepared to welcome the non-student, either with "showmen" -who understand the public mind or by a general and affable -accessibility of the whole staff. Municipal museums and libraries and -picture-galleries could be organised on similar lines by the -Department, and useful private foundations, such as the Bishopsgate -Institute, could be invited to co-operate, without interference in -their management. The supply of novels ought to be restricted to the -great masters of every country and a few moderns. The rich supply of -serious literature ought to be made attractive and easily accessible -to the public by good bibliographical guidance and constant lectures. -These things are, of course, being done. It is not so much the local -officials one quarrels with as the nation and its leaders. We want an -immense co-ordination and development of our resources and efforts out -of national funds. Lecture-societies and all kinds of educative -centres and institutes--there are thousands in the country--need to be -affiliated, encouraged, advised, and supplemented. The State should -not even shrink from publishing. The trade supplies only the actual -demand: the State must create a new and larger demand. Music would be -an integral part of this scheme of education, and here again we have a -large material ready for organisation. - -Any man who has engaged in the work of educating and stimulating the -general public will realise how urgently some such scheme is needed, -and how splendid a service it would render. He will realise also that -the task will be formidable. I do not for a moment conceive the -general public as thirsting for culture. That is very largely due to -the way in which the work has hitherto been done. The recent success -of small but authoritative manuals of science and history, and of -several cheap series of literary works of high value, shows that a -fairly large public responds to every enlightened effort to assist -them. It will become very much larger when the work is organised on a -national scale and conceived as a really important function of the -State. That even then the majority of the nation would rush to the -reconstructed libraries and museums and lecture or concert-halls no -one will imagine for a moment. We do not undo in a few years the -effect of centuries of evil traditions. I am assuming, however, that -these various reforms I am discussing will proceed more or less -simultaneously, and will enormously assist each other. The abolition -of war would release rich funds for educational purposes: the -reorganisation of industry would provide a little more leisure and -capacity for mental recreation: other reforms would give a general -intellectual stimulation. Even now, however, much of this work could -be done. If we think it sufficient that our people remain in a -condition of elementary literacy and half-developed intelligence, if -we fancy that the _race_ will advance because it sets aside a special -caste of scholars for the promotion of culture, we may regard our -actual situation without concern. But if we desire that general -alertness of mind and decision of character which a democratic rule -implies, we cannot be indifferent. Aristocrats justly rail at the -democracy of Athens and Rome; it was an uneducated democracy--literate, -but uneducated, like ours. We need to advance, if we are not to -recede; and the uplifted race of the days to come will honour the -generation that taught men the compatibility of culture and -entertainment. - -I am speaking, in the main, of the mass of the workers, but it would -be entirely unjust to insinuate that they alone need adult education. -The conventions of social life, the extraordinary slavery to fashions -and artificial rules, betray an intellectual flabbiness in the -wealthier members of society which just as urgently calls for -stimulation. We seem at times quite incapable of drawing a line -between acts of real courtesy and taste, which imply a certain grace -or delicacy of character, and conventional usages which have no -rational basis. The insistence on these conventional usages is part of -that general slavery to false traditions which I am assailing. - -The most flagrant instance of this weakness of mind and character is -the docility with which we meet changes of fashion in dress, or retain -eccentric forms of clothing. Hardly any other feature so strongly -impresses the close observer with the fact that the race, as a whole -(and I speak only of civilised communities), advances little in -intelligence and self-possession in spite of the progress made by its -intellectual experts. One would say that here, especially, we need a -strong draught of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche,--the gospel -of self-assertion, of strong personality, of severe reasoning,--but I -have not observed that our modern Nietzscheans differ much from their -neighbours in such matters. Yet the commercial expansion of modern -times is making this tyranny of fashion more ludicrous than it ever -was before. - -The fashion-plates and descriptions contained in ladies' journals -have always provoked the furtive smile of the male. A coterie of -tradesmen, who are eager to promote business, and of wealthy ladies -who are equally eager to show that their purses are unlimited, decree -that the hat or costume shall continually vary in shape and colour. -The Anglo-French jargon of the sartorial journalist then impresses on -a larger circle of ladies the need of alertness and the horror of -being _démodée_,--it would be proof of incapacity to say "out of -fashion,"--and, as the season approaches, the proclamation of the -forthcoming colour or model is awaited with more feverish anxiety than -the announcement of the national budget. Schools of artists are -secretly inventing some variation--the wider the variation the -better--on the thousands of costumes which have already graced the -feminine frame, or discussing bold suggestions of reviving an ancient -model which has long disappeared even from the shops of -wardrobe-dealers. Privileged ladies rise in prestige by obtaining and -whispering advance information. At length the shop-windows blaze with -the new colour, the journals depict an ingenious new combination of -edges and folds and puckers, and womanhood plunges to the bottom of -its purse with an eagerness to avoid the suspicion of financial -stringency; while the discarded hats and dresses percolate -romantically through lower strata of society. Is it not good for -trade? - -The masculine smile is, however, wearing thinner, as the absurd -despotism is now almost as great among the stronger sex. Here also a -group of commercial mathematicians evolve, every few months, a new -combination of brim and crown and curve, and artists design new -patterns of cloth and new contours of garment, and tyrannical -journalists hold up to public execration the man of means or position -who dares to find last year's fashion sufficiently comfortable or -decorative. "Not worn now, sir," says the shopman, with indulgent -smile, when you go to renew the hat or coat that has pleased you. The -bewildering thing is, not that manufacturers should be eager to sell -us new garments every few weeks, but that we bow with such docility to -this ludicrous fiction of monarchy. Long trousers or short trousers, -creased trousers or turned-up trousers, tight coats or loose coats, -bowlers or trilbys--we listen submissively to the mandate, without the -least consideration of our appearance or convenience. - -Indeed, the only things that are permanent in this extravagant -procession of fashions are the things that are ugly, inconvenient, or -unhealthy, especially on the masculine side. The silk hat and the hard -felt hat linger as if in these extraordinary creations the -manufacturer had discovered the ideal head-covering. The swallow-tail -coat survives as if æsthetics could advance no further in the -attiring of wealthy men; even the buttons at the back, to which our -fiery ancestor attached his sword, must not be abandoned. The more -comfortable dinner-jacket remains a privileged client at the gate -until some audacious peer or prince will dispel the oppressive -reverence for the ancient swallow-tail; and peers and princes know how -dangerous it is to tamper with the spirit of reverence. The starched -collar and shirt are as rigidly prescribed as sacred vestments on high -occasions. The lady must still hang a thick and heavy screen of cloth -from her hips; first having it made too long and then holding it up -with her hand in order to escape the rich organic deposit on our -streets and the filth with which we suffer "domestic pets" to make -our squares hideous. Her abdominal organs must, if one may credit the -marvellous photographs published by the corset-makers, be -reconstructed every few years to accommodate the latest scheme of -body-curves. And from these upper reaches of our intellectual world, -the tyranny descends through level after level of the community until -it lays its last stern injunctions on the junior clerk and the -post-office assistant; or passes beyond the seas and compels the -Chinaman or the Japanese to discard his beautiful robe in favour of a -frock-coat and silk hat, or a striped tweed and bowler, when he -presents himself at the entrance-gate to civilisation. - -We find an almost equally ludicrous tyranny of tradition or fashion in -almost every part of the ritual of social life. Twenty years ago I -issued from a rite-bound monastery into the free life of the world, to -find it similarly swathed in ritual bonds. I purchased, and stealthily -mastered, the "ceremonial" (as we used to call our rite-book) of -this new world--a book on "etiquette"--and led for some months a -strenuous and exacting life. I entered drawing-rooms with a nervous -recollection of about a score of rules that had to be observed in the -first five minutes, while the ritual of the mundane table entailed for -a long time a good deal of furtive observation of my fellows and -trembling under the butler's eye. To this day I am not quite clear -at what precise angle the elbow must stand in shaking hands. Social -life is overspread by a network of these prescriptions of the -unwritten law or the judicial decisions of the aristocracy which we -call "manners." There is, as a rule, so little discrimination -between the formal rules of an artificial code and the real impulses -of a gentlemanly nature that one has often to listen gravely and -silently while ladies commend the "perfect manners" of a man whom -one knows to be an adventurous ninny or a beast. - -We need a new conception of civilisation, a sustained stimulation of -the intelligence throughout life, a strong infusion of the Nietzschean -gospel of personality and self-assertion. Some day we shall regard -education as half of the nation's serious business, and will devote -half our national revenue to it. Let it not be imagined that this -suggests a generation of dour and frightfully serious people who never -smoke or play bridge. I omit the function of entertainment only -because it has never been neglected. The supreme business of a State -is to make its people happy, strong, and prosperous. We shall approach -the ideal when we abolish war and reduce pauperism and crime by -registering all workers, organising all industry, reforming justice -and the penal system, and removing the morally diseased. - -In those days education will be a vast, humane, scientific scheme for -guiding the growth of human embryos into industrious and orderly -citizens, and enabling the adult citizen pleasurably to cultivate his -mind and taste. The development of each child will be followed as the -development of a pupil is followed in the Jesuit Society, but with a -care to develop its individuality fully, in harmony with the -individualities of others. The child will not pass from the sphere of -the educator at puberty, with unformed mind and character, to swell -the great army of the intellectually listless. Ruskin's noble ideal -of "as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed, and -happy-hearted human creatures" will replace the narrow standards of -our Education Department, with which the child can have no sympathy. -From the first dawn of intelligence it will feel that a well-wishing -parent, the community, is training it to derive all the joy it can -from life, consistently with the joy of others and the day's duties, -when its turn comes to don the _toga virilis_. It will have learned by -that time that a development of its characteristic human powers is the -richest possession it can have, and, coming to adolescence, will not -at once cast aside the work of the teacher and dissipate its energy in -the crude indulgence of elementary passions and futile imaginings. -Neither child nor adult will shrink from work which stimulates the -intelligence or refines the taste, and a fine alert race, impatient of -untruth, injustice, and suffering, will set itself to develop fully -the resources of this planet. - - - CHAPTER X. - THE CLERICAL SHAM - -THROUGHOUT the preceding chapters there have been resentful or -disdainful references to the Churches, and it may be suspected that, -in assailing other people's prejudices, I have cherished and -proceeded upon the anti-clerical prejudice. A very cursory examination -will, however, suffice to show that these criticisms were sound and -pertinent, and are not due to some mysterious antipathy to the -profession to which I once belonged. Few of those ugly or mischievous -traditions which form what I have called the smothering ash in the -intellectual activity of the nation have not the general support of -the clergy. Few of the reforms here suggested do not meet their -hostility. They constitute one of the most injurious conservative -forces in modern life. Their bodies are strewn over the whole -battlefield of the nineteenth century, and not one in a thousand of -them fought on the side of progress. The esteem in which they are -still widely held and the pretexts by which they guard this esteem are -the last, and by no means the least, of those shams which hamper our -advance and distract our energy. - -A full and detailed indictment of the clergy would fill several -columns, and I must confine myself here to two or three considerations -which are at once sufficiently drastic and easily demonstrable. I will -therefore be content to show: - -1. That the clergy claim and receive a large measure of public -confidence on the ground that they are the guardians of the most -sacred and beneficent truths, yet impose on the less educated masses -a preposterous collection of untruths, or statements which many of -their own scholars, and most lay scholars, regard as untrue. - -2. That the clergy pose as the most sensitive and effective custodians -of our morals, yet their procedure is unjust, spiteful, and deceptive -to an extent which would not be tolerated in any lay profession. - -3. That the clergy represent that their creed civilised Europe and is -necessary for the maintenance of its civilisation, yet their influence -and their ideas retarded the evolution of European civilisation for -centuries, and retard it to-day wherever they have sufficient power or -are immune from weighty criticism. - -In enumerating the untruths which are still imposed by the clergy, I -will not linger over the Old Testament. When you censure them to-day -for attaching a sacred value to this collection of ancient Jewish -literature, they are apt to reply that your criticism is forty years -out of date. Every educated clergyman, they exclaim, now acknowledges -that the Old Testament is a mixture of Babylonian legends, primitive -tribal traditions, and moral literature of a naïve and very -interesting description. Whether this statement is true or no I must -leave to the judgment of those who have a closer acquaintance with the -modern clergy. Only two years ago I was persuaded, in an idle hour on -a liner, to listen to a sermon delivered by a young clergyman who had -just issued, with honours, from a highly modern Wesleyan college. It -was on the miracles of Moses in the wilderness--ingeniously relieved -by references to such other miracles as the appearance of a cross to -Constantine--and accepted them as literally as did Peter the Hermit. -Religious periodicals and books and parish-magazines suggest that -there is a good deal still of this medieval credulity; or that, at -least, the number of "educated clergymen" must be somewhat -restricted. But let us accept the assurance that the educated clergy -do accept the Old Testament at its true historical value. In which -case we must be content to express our surprise that no clergyman -seems to have the least scruple about imposing these things on young -children, and rustic congregations, and less cultivated races--than -which there is no more cowardly form of untruth: and that some of the -most notoriously unreliable and barbaric pages of the Old Testament -are read, Sunday by Sunday, as "the word of God" in all the -Christian Churches of the world, under the official orders of every -ecclesiastical authority in the world. - -However, since these cultivated ecclesiastics smile at our criticism -of the Old Testament, and see nothing improper in a deception of the -ignorant, of which any body of professional laymen would be incapable, -let us turn to the New Testament. It is always useful to consider the -attitude of the clergy in its historical perspective. A hundred years -ago they were defending against the Deists the absolute truthfulness -of the Old Testament. Christ had promised the Holy Spirit to the -Church: the Holy Spirit could not possibly tolerate untruth: therefore -the teaching of the Church for sixteen centuries must be right. Within -two generations they have, in a great number, abandoned the inerrancy -of the Old Testament, without abandoning the Holy Spirit. It seems -only the other day when Cardinal Newman pleaded wistfully that we were -not compelled, under pain of eternal damnation, to believe that -Tobit's dog did really wag its tail. However, outside Scotland -clergymen do seem to be free to form their own opinions on such -allegations as that a whale swallowed a man and housed him for three -days. But in thus admitting that "inspiration" was consistent with -error, they have put the New Testament also in the hand of the critic. - -It is well to remember, too, that this modern criticism of the Bible -is conducted almost entirely by divines. The average churchgoer has an -impression that these terrible people who are known as "the Higher -Critics" are anti-clerical laymen: possibly lascivious gentlemen -whose real ambition is to undermine the salutary discipline imposed by -the Churches. They are, of course, on the contrary, nearly all -ordained clergymen, and very conscientious clergymen, of some branch -of the Church. Rationalists never criticise the Bible. It has become a -branch of theological scholarship. I once--having been challenged by -the local clergyman, who promptly disappeared when I arrived--gave a -lecture on the divinity of Christ to an audience of Presbyterian -artisans, and assured them that the views and arguments I put before -them were taken solely from the works of distinguished and highly -honoured theologians. Their amazement and horror were most amusing. -They had not the dimmest idea that controversy on these points lay -merely between advanced and not-advanced members of the Christian -clergy; and that their local oracle had, in effect, merely been -imposing on them the opinions of the less learned divines in -opposition to the more learned. - -And this fact dispenses me from the need to drag the reader into the -somewhat tiring labyrinth of proof and disproof which these warring -theologians have constructed. Nothing could be further from my mind -than the presumptuous and immodest wish to brand the clergy as -dishonest, and their beliefs as superstitious, because I happen to -regard those beliefs as false. Let the position be clearly understood. -A study of the _Hibbert Journal_ or any scholarly theological -periodical, or of any batch of learned theological works, will apprise -any person that what are ordinarily conceived to be the fundamental -positions of the Christian religion are challenged by a large -proportion of distinguished divines. Pleas of "reconstruction" are -constantly put before us; and at the Church of England Congress in -1912 it was plainly decided by the presiding Archbishop of York that -the "advanced" theologians had a legitimate place in the Church. -It is not a question of a few controverted points in the scheme of -Christian doctrine. No point that is specifically Christian is left -unchallenged. The divinity and miracles--especially the miraculous -birth and resurrection--of Christ, the prophecies, the doctrine of -heaven and hell, the divine guidance of the Church, the fall and -redemption of man--all these characteristic doctrines are gravely -disputed within the frontiers of the Churches themselves, wherever -freedom of expression is permitted. - -One would prefer to rely on theologians only in such a matter, but for -my purpose it is not immaterial to add that outside the ranks of the -clergy scholarship is overwhelmingly against these doctrines. There -has been a good deal of unsubstantial talk about the beliefs of living -men of intellectual eminence, but resolute efforts have been made of -late years to wring from them a profession of Christian belief, and -the result has been so meagre that my statement is fully justified. A -large number declare that they are on the side of "religion." But -one has only to reflect that even Sir Oliver Lodge warmly professes to -be a Christian--and is, in fact, welcomed to read the lessons in -church--to see how little is conveyed by such expressions. The supreme -effort of the Churches to secure adhesions of this kind is probably -found in Mr. Tabrum's _Religious Beliefs of Scientists_ (1910), and -a study of that extraordinary jumble of the living and the dead, the -distinguished and the obscure, the really believing Christians and the -men who are notoriously not, will convince any person of the failure -of the Churches to obtain the literal adhesion of even a respectable -proportion of our distinguished men: not men of science merely--it is -a stupid error to suppose that the decay of faith is more or less -confined to them--but men of eminence in any department of research or -intellectual life. Not one in ten of them, in any educated country of -the Christian world to-day, has ever professed a belief in the -doctrines or statements I have enumerated; and vague professions of a -regard for religion do not concern me here. - -Now I am, as I said, not passing any personal opinion on these -Christian teachings: I am merely drawing attention to their position -in modern life. The uncultivated masses and the body of the clergy who -preach to these masses accept the miraculous birth, death, -resurrection, and all the rest, quite implicitly. Here and there one -finds a preacher who dissents; I am speaking of the mass. At the -middle level of mental culture, among both clergy and laity, dissent -becomes much more frequent. At the highest level of theological -scholarship it would be fair to say that the dissenters are almost, if -not quite, as numerous as the believers; and at the higher level of -lay culture, where opinions may be more freely formed and expressed, -the dissenters are the overwhelming majority. These men may be theists -or agnostics or Christians in the broader sense of the word, but the -great majority of them do not believe in these distinctively Christian -doctrines. Yet the Churches, wherever they are not kept in check by -this critical element, invest these doctrines with the most sacred and -confident character: stamp them as unquestioned truths on the minds of -children and uneducated people, and put them forward as their official -and authoritative doctrines. Nay, there is hardly a theologian in any -church who does not, when Christmas and Easter annually occur, lend -his official and most solemn countenance to these discarded or -disputed traditions. - -This would not, could not, be done in any branch of lay culture. One -may justly insist on one's opinion in any disputed theme, but what -would be the attitude of our leaders of culture if any authoritative -historian, philosopher, or scientist attempted to impose on the -inexpert, as an unquestioned truth, some older opinion which a large -proportion of the expert regarded as false or questionable? What would -they say to a responsible teacher in one of these branches of lay -culture who read certain statements to those who trusted him, and said -within his own mind: "This is what people thought a thousand years -ago"? A clergyman told me that it was with this mental reservation -that he read the creeds and gospels on Sundays. What would a -philosopher, or historian, or scientist say, if his department of -culture were an organic association with a public and authoritative -teaching, and this public teaching contained statements which a large -proportion of the leading representatives regarded as false? And what -would he say to any colleagues who urged him to allow these things to -stand because a change might lessen the respect of the general public -for their authority? - -This situation reflects gravely on the character of Christian -ministers. One need not attempt the futile task of estimating what -proportion of the clergy believe the things they teach, but we are -constantly receiving proof, especially posthumous proof, that large -numbers of them do not. I have been severely rebuked for suggesting -such a thing, but when I find a group of young Oxford divines saying -plumply, in an important recent work (_Foundations_), that Christian -theology is "out of harmony with science, philosophy, and -scholarship," I can only say that I trust a sufficient number of the -clergy are educated enough to know it. The majority of the clergy are, -however, sufficiently ignorant of "science, philosophy, and -scholarship" to be in good faith, and one ought not to press the -indictment in this sense. At sea I listen occasionally, from some safe -distance, to sermons, and am amazed that even a fair proportion of the -passengers can sit with grave faces during the delivery of such empty -and ignorant vapourings. One reflects that all over the Christian -world priests are similarly dogmatising on the most profound problems -of life, and not one in a thousand of them has an elementary knowledge -of those branches of modern research which a public guide ought to -command. It is not the decay, but the survival, of churchgoing that -perplexes one. - -There is, however, another aspect of the matter which requires serious -attention. There have been, from the earliest ages of the Christian -Church, men of superior intelligence and independent character who -refused to submit to the dictation of the clergy. There is no need to -recall how the clergy dealt with them. Christian ministers have in -this regard the most abominable record in the whole history of -civilised religion. Some day it will be put side by side with that of -the priests of Saturn or of Quetzalcotl, who offered human sacrifices. -All that need be noted here is the effrontery with which modern -clerical writers defend their predecessors. If the principles on which -they base their defence are valid, they would again be compelled to -burn heretics if they obtained power. The Church of Rome is bold -enough to acknowledge this. Huxley tells how his distinguished -Catholic friend, Dr. J. Ward, warmly assented to this, but we have had -since then a more authoritative indication. A work of Canon Law which -was published at Rome under the "enlightened" rule of Leo XIII., -and with his emphatic personal approval--the _Institutiones Juris -Canonici_ of Father de Luca--proves at length the duty of the Church -to put to death heretics. - -However, we will not waste rhetoric over the past or over an -impossible future. What policy have the modern clergy, who are unable -to induce the State to burn dissenters, substituted for that of their -predecessors? A policy that is, to a very great extent, unjust, -spiteful, and dishonourable: a policy that, in the very name of truth, -is marked by a more flagrant indifference to truth than you will find -in any other reputable department of modern life. - -The first feature of this policy will be seen by any generally -informed person who will take the trouble to read a batch of religious -works or periodicals. He will find numbers of statements of the most -amazing inaccuracy. It is, no doubt, an exceptional thing for a -clerical writer to make a statement which is, to his conscious -knowledge, untrue. The very suggestion seems prejudiced, but is there -a vast difference between imposing official untruths on ignorant -congregations and supporting these untruths by others? The constant -repetition of these ancient and discredited formulæ does not induce a -very punctilious temper in regard to truth. If it is quite lawful to -repeat from the Old or the New Testament historical statements which -are not true or are gravely disputed, why not other historical -statements which have got into ecclesiastical currency? - -Usually, however, the attitude of the writer seems to be one of -culpable indifference to the truth or untruth of the statements he -makes. He finds in some previous writer a statement which supports his -case, and he reproduces it without inquiry. If he were a mere layman, -engaged in some branch of profane culture, he would not dare to -repeat, without further inquiry, statements which he found made in his -own sectarian interest by men of no high authority or original -scholarship. The clergy, however, do this habitually, and one is -compelled to conclude that they are more or less indifferent about the -truth of their assertions, if those assertions are favourable to -religion. Just as I write the press reports Dr. R. F. Horton telling -a congregation that a British regiment was saved at Mons by the -appearance of a legion of angels, and assuring his audience that this -silly myth is "repeated by so many witnesses that if anything can be -established by contemporary evidence it is established." The story -has gone the round of our pulpits and religious press. - -I am speaking, however, from a particularly wide experience of -religious literature. For thirty years--ten years as a clerical -student or professor, and twenty years as an interested observer of -religious controversy--I have devoted much time to books and journals -of this kind, and I repeat that there is no other branch of literature -so flagrantly inaccurate and unscrupulous. A religious periodical -(_The Christian World_, 20th August 1903), in the course of an -editorial on "Candour in the Pulpit" (meaning lack of candour in -the pulpit), said: "A foremost modern theologian, by no means of the -radical school, has recorded his significant judgment that one of the -main characteristics of apologetic literature is its lack of honesty; -and no one who has studied theology can doubt that it has suffered -more than any other science from equivocal phraseology." When a -journal which has to consult the feelings of a large backward -clientele uses this language, we may conclude that the situation is -really bad. In fact, not even political journalism betrays such gross -carelessness as to the truth of the statements with which it assails -its opponents. "The more sacred our ideas are, the more savagely we -fight for them," said Mr. Chesterton, defending the Inquisition. Mr. -Chesterton's own genial method (except that one recognises the taint -in his _Victorian Age in Literature_) disproves his aphorism. There is -not the slightest excuse for the gross procedure of religious writers. - -I have in various works and articles given hundreds of examples of -this procedure, and will be content to deal summarily with two of the -chief types of misrepresentation--those relating to history and those -relating to science. The classical examples in history are the -clerical legends about the morality of the pagans. Here the clerical -lie goes on its way from age to age without the slightest regard of -the progress of historical research. Discoveries in the ruins (such as -the Hammurabi Code, temple-literature, etc.) and a closer scrutiny of -the sources used by the Greek historian Herodotus have made it quite -clear that the old Mesopotamian civilisations were comparable to ours -in moral sentiment and practice. Instead of women having to sacrifice -their virginity in the temples at Babylon, we have abundant evidence -that chastity was demanded and valued in brides, and that the priests -insisted on purity. Every other moral sentiment was equally developed. -We find the same high moral development in Egypt. All this is -disregarded, and the superiority of the Hebrew and Christian sacred -books is maintained by a resolute propagation of ancient fables. - -In regard to Greece and Rome the practice is even worse. The -exceptional features of their life are described as normal and general -features, and the very abundant literature which has put in its true -light the character of Athens and Rome is completely ignored. Special -periods of vice under bad emperors (who, in the aggregate, ruled only -seventy years out of three hundred and twenty) are spread over the -whole of Roman history. The gossip and democratic rhetoric of Juvenal -are pressed literally, in spite of the judgment of all serious -historians. The works which exhibit the better side of Rome, and the -inscriptions which show a very high degree of character and -humanitarianism under the Stoics, are wholly suppressed. The balanced -verdict of modern historians is scandalously flouted. At all costs it -must be shown that Europe needed regeneration, and that Christian -morality was far superior to pagan; and so the clergy continue, in -spite of protests from some of their own lay scholars (Emil Reich, for -instance), to draw a flagrantly untruthful picture of the morals of -Greece and Rome. - -But this misrepresentation is venial in comparison with the -misrepresentation of later European history. The clerical story of the -moral change that came over Europe when it embraced Christianity is -one of the grossest impostures ever laid on the human mind. Even -clerics like Dean Milman sufficiently refuted it decades ago, but it -flourishes as profitably as ever. From the pulpit of St. Paul's to -the tin chapels of Mudville it is one of the most treasured -traditions, and perhaps no picture is more familiar to Christian -audiences than that of Rome, drunk with its vices, reeling to the foot -of the cross and embracing sobriety. It is a calculated clerical myth -in every line. The Stoics reformed Rome at a time when the Christians -were a mere handful of obscure people, and the magnificent work done -and institutions set up by the Stoics were not sustained by the -Church. Even in regard to the persecutions the clergy still repeat the -legend which modern historians recognise as based on a mass of -medieval forgeries. Civilisation sank rapidly until it touched the -depth of the early Middle Ages, and, as Milman candidly recognised, -the claim that at least virtue increased is the reverse of the truth. -The Church did not denounce or abolish slavery: it discouraged -education: it abased woman: it set back a thousand years the -development of culture. Yet our clerical writers repeat the medieval -falsehoods as fluently as if modern history did not exist. - -The later period is just as grossly falsified by Catholic writers, but -here the Protestant--who has somehow convinced himself that the Holy -Spirit abandoned Europe to the devil for a thousand years--begins to -cry for candour. Much of the Protestant literature is uncritical and -unscrupulous in its use of authorities; it is, however, instructive in -comparison with the kind of history purveyed by the "Catholic Truth -Society." There is hardly a candid historian in the Church, even in -Germany and the United States. The latest historian of the Papacy, Dr. -L. Pastor, is certainly entitled to respect for his effort, though -even he does not present all the facts; while men like Cardinal -Gasquet are appallingly one-sided. I am, however, thinking mainly of -the "popular" literature, on which no stricture could be too -severe. Indeed, when it comes to the modern period, both Protestant -and Catholic literature is scandalous. One often finds Voltaire, -Rousseau, and Paine described as "atheists," and the most slovenly -observations on the Revolution. Roosevelt's description of Paine as -a "dirty little atheist" is a good indication of the kind of -literature that even an educated religious man may read. - -On the scientific side the inaccuracy and carelessness are just as -great, but the field is too vast for consideration here. The conflict -in regard to evolution has produced an extraordinary literature on the -clerical side, and, to the amusement of students of science, it still -flows from the religious press and refreshes suburban faith. Men who -have never devoted a month to the study of science engage in conflict -with the most authoritative masters of biology, and thrill their -ignorant followers with the vigour and dexterity of their fencing. -These Jesuit and other writers have, of course, set up a lay-figure -for their valiant attacks. They misrepresent the views and motives of -the man they oppose, give garbled quotations from his works, and -support their own antiquated positions by quotations from scientific -men who lived in the earlier phases of the controversy. No trick is -more common in this class of literature than to justify obsolete -statements by quoting "authorities" who died long ago, and leaving -the inexpert reader to suppose that they are modern men of science; -while clerics who could not distinguish a palæolithic from a -civilised skull write pompous essays on such subjects as the evolution -of man. Works of this kind circulate by the hundred in the churches -even to-day, literally deluding millions of people, while the works of -more expert writers are denounced as "against religion" and unfit -to read. - -Still more flagrant is the clerical behaviour in rebutting the general -belief that men of science have for the most part abandoned -Christianity. They--with the support of a man like Sir O. Lodge--talk -glibly of the death of "Victorian materialism" and the rebirth of -spiritualism; whereas Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, Darwin, Clifford, -Lewes, and every other Victorian man of science repudiated -materialism. When you ask who the modern men are who have abandoned -the views of the Huxleian generation and come to favour religion, they -produce an extraordinarily confused list of names. I have referred to -their _magnum opus_ in this department, Tabrum's _Religious Beliefs -of Scientists_. It actually includes two prominent members of the -Rationalist Press Association; while men like Lodge and Wallace and -Crookes are included among the more orthodox. Of late years it is the -fashion to impress ignorant congregations with the names of W. James, -Eucken, and Bergson; whereas James and Bergson are not even theists, -and Eucken professes a form of theism which any Church would heatedly -repudiate. The members of the various sects are literally and most -scandalously duped on this point. - -I have claimed that the clergy are spiteful and unjust, as well as -careless about truth. There are very few popular religious writers who -seem capable of giving a correct account of the views they are -criticising, and there are very many who manipulate quotations with -the effect of grossly deceiving their readers. Worse still, the clergy -habitually slander their critics, and these slanders live for years in -spite of refutation. Seven years ago they began to circulate a silly -and obviously incredible charge that Professor Haeckel "forged" -illustrations in support of his case, and, though the libel was at -once thoroughly refuted by Professor Schmidt, it is still current. -Only a few months ago I received from India documents which showed -that the Jesuits there were still insisting on it. A friend of mine -informed me that he heard one Scottish preacher, in the course of a -public lecture on Haeckel, assure his audience, on the authority of a -"friend of Haeckel's," that that venerable scientist was a man -of most licentious life! No charge is too gross to repeat, if it -discredits an "enemy of the faith." Dozens of times I have heard -of the wildest calumnies about myself which circulate throughout the -English-speaking world, because I have occasionally written a critical -work (always grossly misrepresented in the Catholic press) about the -Catholic Church. I never belonged to the Catholic priesthood: I was -discharged from it for fraud: I left it in order to marry a nun I had -seduced: and so on. Only the lighter of these things are put in print, -and then always with the name omitted. Only a few months ago a priest -(and Education-Councillor) in a Scottish town gravely assured a -schoolmistress, in the presence of an acquaintance of mine, that his -Church held unshakable proofs of my vicious ways. As usual, my request -that they would say so in print was ignored. Most ex-priests have the -same experience. One of the most refined and religious of these -seceders, a man who became a most respected professor at Oxford, was -pursued by the calumny (never printed) that he had shown indecent -photographs to servant-girls! - -This tactic of the Church militant is happily so notorious that little -harm is done among the general public, but Catholics are gravely -deluded, in the hope that they will be induced to refrain from reading -any except their own mendacious literature. - -Yet one of the most familiar themes of the men who pursue this tactic -is that they alone can inspire high character! Notoriously insincere -in their professions, teachers of doctrines which the higher culture -of our time and many of their own leading scholars condemn, living in -an atmosphere of untruth and unreality, relying on a literature which -is generally as indifferent to truth as it is to grace, unscrupulously -repeating idle slanders of their opponents, they ask us to believe -that they are genuinely concerned about the future of society if we -continue to reject their authority. It is not strange that the great -cities of the modern world are unmoved by their dirges. - -The third point of my indictment is that the clergy have forged the -historical credentials by which they lay claim to our respect. I have -already observed that their version of the history of Europe is -peculiar to their own literature, and I have elsewhere (_The Bible in -Europe_) shown in detail how worthless it is. The "conversion" of -Europe to Christianity in the fourth century was, as every historian -of the period shows, an enforcement of the new religion on Europe by -imperial authority, accompanied by the most violent and bloody -repression of all other religions. We then have the witness of -contemporary Christian writers that this "conversion" was followed -by a general moral and intellectual decline. The great reforms which -Rome had inaugurated were destroyed, and Europe sank into the -ignorance, superstition, and grossness of the Middle Ages. It is quite -true that the triumph of Christianity coincided with the overthrow of -civilisation by the northern tribes, but the Teutonic tribes were not -inferior to the Arabs or Turks (whom Mohammedanism civilised in the -course of a century or two), and the Church soon obtained despotic -power over them. The Eastern Empire, I may add, was _not_ dominated by -the barbarians, yet it also suffered a grave moral and intellectual -decline. The fact is, that the clergy made no effort to induce the -barbarians to restore the old school-system, to reconstruct the Roman -law, to free the slaves (and, later, the serfs), to adjust their high -native ideal of womanhood to the new social order, or to rebuild the -fine civic and philanthropic system of the Romans. Culture fell so low -that the very promising germs of later Greek science were allowed to -die, and nearly the whole of the surviving Greek literature was -unknown in Europe for many centuries. The trade in spurious relics, -the rapacity and unscrupulousness of the Papacy, the coarseness of the -nobles and people, and the general sexual licence of priests and monks -were almost incredible. - -This dark age began to receive the first rays of new light in the -eleventh and twelfth centuries, and historians are agreed that the new -light came from the civilisation of the Spanish Moors. This it was -that, by introducing Greek literature and its Arab commentators, led -to the early revival of science. But the cult of the grossest relics -and superstitions continued, and the clergy repressed, or inspired -rulers to repress, all dissent with more ferocity than ever. During -the one general persecution of the early Christians by the Romans -about two thousand had suffered for the faith; and only a few hundreds -can be added from the earlier sporadic persecutions. But within fifty -years of the establishment of Christianity in the Empire, tens of -thousands of Donatists, Manichæans, Arians, Pagans, etc., were done -to death, and hundreds of thousands ruined or maltreated, by the -triumphant Christians. In later centuries it was the turn of -Monophysites, Monothelites, etc., and in the first quarter of the -thirteenth century alone more than a million heretics were done to -death in Languedoc. If the Jews and witches and others who suffered on -religious grounds be added, the "butcher's bill" of the new -religion passes ten millions; and beyond these are the countless -millions of those who suffered something less than death. - -We look back to-day with feelings of horror on this ghastly carnage, -especially when we remember the absurd character of the doctrines -which the heretics assailed and the immorality of the clergy and monks -who were primarily responsible for the executions and massacres. But -this savage repression of independent thought had consequences of an -even more disastrous nature on European civilisation. It not only -removed from the community many of the more courageous and more -intelligent stocks, but it intimidated others from using their powers, -except in the futile argumentation of the Schoolmen. The result was a -prolonged suspension of the development of the higher culture which -was destined to give Europe its supremacy. It will hardly be doubted -to-day that this culture was contained in the scientific works of the -Greeks, especially the Alexandrian Greeks. The Arabs brought this -culture to Spain, and, chiefly through the mediation of the Jews, it -was slowly introduced into Europe and inspired such scholars as -Gilbert, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Copernicus. Physics, -chemistry, and medicine began their development. But the fate of Roger -Bacon and Albert and Vesalius sufficiently reminds us of the -Church's attitude toward the new culture, and the story of the -hampering of intellectual progress in the exact study of nature has -been repeatedly told. The scholastic fever, which had absorbed the -energies of most of the acutest minds in Europe, had to disappear, and -the power of the Church to be enfeebled, before the civilisation of -Europe could advance. - -The further introduction of Greek literature, when the Turks drove the -Greeks from Constantinople, the invention of printing, the expansion -of commerce and navigation, and the weakening of Church-authority by -the Reformation, opened the modern phase of the development of -European civilisation. It is only for the last of these changes that a -section of the clergy may plausibly claim our gratitude, and even here -we must make reserves. The share of the laity in the Reformation was -greater than the share of the clergy, and the aim of the Reformed -clergy was by no means to free and stimulate the intelligence of -Europe. They frowned on lay culture, and burned their opponents, as -inhumanly as the Roman priests did. It was not until the growth of -sects had further enfeebled ecclesiastical authority, and a large body -of lay scholars had arisen, that Europe became civilised, even in a -generous sense of the word. Then science and philosophy and history -grew to the proportions which distinguish "modern times," and a -resolute social and humanitarian movement began to remove those -appalling injustices of the industrial and political order which the -clergy had witnessed in silence for more than a thousand years. - -I repeat that this is not an eccentric view of the development of -European civilisation, but the view taken by historians ever since -their science was emancipated from clerical control. The view which -the clergy still sedulously propagate, that the Christian religion -inspired the civilisation of Europe, is the most preposterous -historical sham which we still entertain. It is unintelligible how a -scholar like Mr. Bryce can give even a qualified support to it. In the -minds of most people it is a pitiful confusion of ideas associated -with one of the most elementary fallacies known to the logician. The -fallacy is the syllogism which suffices for the majority of the -faithful: Europe is the great centre of civilisation, Europe was -Christian during the development of this civilisation, therefore -Christianity was the inspirer of the civilisation. The inference is -foolish enough in itself, but it becomes ludicrous when we reflect on -the facts. Europe was civilised before it became Christian; it -inherited all the best culture and experience of Egypt, Mesopotamia, -Persia, Greece, and Rome. But Europe lost its civilisation when it -became Christian, very largely because the new religion found culture -dangerous to its superstitions and repressed it. And Europe owes its -return to civilisation to the revival of pagan ideas, and it advances -in civilisation in proportion as it discards Christianity. - -The confusion of ideas is just as foolish as the fallacy. Europe is -"great" in two very different senses. Most of the white nations -are "great" in the vastness of their territory and the wealth they -have derived from subject peoples. To connect this form of greatness -with the Sermon on the Mount is audacious: it is a practice which -really belongs to the age when English merchants who waxed fat on the -negro-slave trade could complacently give the name "Jesus" to -their vessels. This form of greatness frankly rested on buccaneering. -Europe is great also in intellectual development, with the scientific -and technical achievements to which this has led. We need not ask what -particular Christian sentiment has inspired this; we know too well the -share the clergy have had in repressing it. - -Lastly, Europe is great in the cultivation of humane sentiment and the -endeavour to practise social justice. It is here that the clergy -usually claim their usefulness; and there is hardly a bolder -mis-statement in their literature than this. The New Testament -contains not a single moral sentiment that was unknown to the Greeks -and Romans, and to the later Jews: the moral sentiments of the New -Testament are so vague and elementary that not a single priest -denounced slavery for nine hundred years, and not a Church has -denounced war for more than eighteen hundred years: the Christian -ethic was so uninspiring that Europe reeked with vice and crime and -war and social injustice until the end of the eighteenth or beginning -of the nineteenth century: when the reform began, in the nineteenth -century, hardly a single priest aided it (until it had won millions of -adherents), and the bishops almost unanimously opposed it: and the -humanitarianism of modern times is an almost exclusively lay movement, -gaining power and fervour in proportion as we sweep the clergy aside. -Europe was civilised under the Roman and Greek pagans, and it is -civilised, in the same broad sense, under the modern pagans; it was -not civilised in the intervening period, and the worst features of its -life to-day are, not recent outgrowths, but inheritances from the -Christian past. - -The pleas which some of the clergy, who know a little history, urge -against this plain generalisation of the historical facts are curious. -The majority, of course, knowing nothing of history, repeat the -conventional untruths, but a few would tell us that this modern -humanitarianism is due to a belated appreciation of the Christian -ethic. Are justice, sympathy, truthfulness, kindness, and honour -confined to the Christian ethic? Was there ever a great moralist, or a -mature civilisation, which failed to appreciate them? Is not the -modern humanitarian movement plainly characterised by a determination -to do good to men, not for a reward in heaven or because Christ (like -so many others) enjoined it, but because you cannot have a fine mind -and character without experiencing this determination? Were there, in -the fifteen hundred years of Christian domination, not enough men with -intelligence enough to perceive the practical bearing of Christ's -ethic? Have these clerical writers frankly abandoned the claim that -the "Spirit of God" guided their predecessors during those fifteen -centuries? And have they read a line of the modern literature which -shows that there is not one humane sentiment in the Gospels that was -not well known to the Jews before the time of Christ? - -The case of the clergy is a tissue of sophistry and untruth from -beginning to end. They have done nothing as a body for European -civilisation, in proportion to their power and leisure and resources. -They did not even teach it chastity. They hindered the development of -the culture which it vitally needed, and dissipated its finest -intelligence in the tilling of barren soil. They fought fiercely for -their own wealth and power, and were for fifteen hundred years a -mighty parasitic growth on the working community. They kept the -bandage of illiteracy on the eyes of ninety per cent. of their people -for fifteen hundred years, and dined merrily with the nobles who -exploited the people. They exacted respect in virtue of their supposed -close communion with an all-holy God; and they were themselves, -especially in their highest representatives, immoral and hypocritical -in an appalling proportion, were brutal in coercing their critics, -were traffickers in spurious and sordid relics, and were, when noble -men and women at last won liberty from them, ignorant, slanderous, and -careless of truth as no reputable body of laymen would stoop to -become. Their record is as poor as their opportunity was great, and -the modern world is, in strict proportion to the growth of education, -passing disdainfully by the open doors of their churches. Of the -twelve million inhabitants of the three greatest cities of Europe -hardly two millions attend church; and if it were not for the -incessant, feverish, and highly organised efforts of the clergy -themselves, churchgoing would show a further rapid and enormous -shrinkage. Yet even in this last phase we find them mumbling to -ill-instructed congregations about their glorious record in Europe -(crowned by a war of four hundred million people), about the -wickedness of an age which prefers the indulgence of its passions to -their serene guidance, and about the terrible doom which they foresee -for Europe if it does not return to its medieval guardians. - -As I observed in dealing with the political organisation, Christianity -is not a set of ideas but a wealthy and powerful corporation. Once it -was a body of men holding certain beliefs: now it is, in essence, an -organisation for the enforcement of those beliefs. It is, in the main, -this professional or corporate interest which sustains Christianity in -Europe: but it is losing heavily. I have shown (_Decay of the Church -of Rome_) that the oldest branch of the Church has lost about a -hundred million followers in a hundred years. I do not think that the -Protestant Churches, being more progressive and less offensive in -their tactics, have lost so heavily, but the extraordinary decay of -churchgoing in cities like Berlin, London, and New York is -suggestive. In spite of all the tricks and devices of the clergy--the -vestments and concerts, the matrimonial agencies and philanthropic -coercion, the Y.M.C.A.'s and P.S.A.'s and all the rest--the people -still fall away. No proof could be formulated to-day that even the -majority of the people of Europe are Christians. - -The thoughtful minority in the religious world are retreating upon the -liberal theism which so many of our cultural leaders profess, or upon -some even more vague mysticism. Into this further province it is not -my intention to go. The world will, no doubt, long remain divided in -opinion, or in sentiment, on fundamental religious issues, and for my -practical purpose this difference is of no account. There is, however, -one last consideration put forward by the clergy which it may be -useful to consider. - -It is represented that we are in danger of a triumph of -"materialism," and it is therefore wise to cling, in spite of -their errors, to the Churches which so solidly represent -"spiritualism." Since many people have regarded me as peculiarly -exposed to this danger of falling under the evil spell of -"materialism," I have made eager inquiries among spiritualist -writers as to the nature of "spirit." I am still hopefully -inquiring. Most of the anæmic mystics who gush over the word cannot -tell you what it means. They have a vague conviction that the -spiritual is immensely more important and productive of good than the -material, and that therefore materialism is the most appalling blight -that can fall on a nation. These prophets of evil are, as I have -previously observed, not strong in history. They do not explain how -Confucianism (which Sir Edwin Arnold, accurately enough, calls -materialism) proved so great an inspiration in China and Japan: how -the Stoics (who refused utterly to believe in spirit) wrought so much -good and inspired so fine a character at Rome: or how this -materialistic age of ours is so idealistic. They know only that we -must at all costs cultivate the spiritual--read spiritual writers, -respect spiritual persons, encourage spiritual clergymen and artists -and actors--and loathe materialism from the bottom of our hearts. And -it is therefore quite natural to suppose that all that is precious in -life and progress depends on the belief in the existence of -"spirits." - -In point of fact, we have here entangled ourselves in an extraordinary -confusion. The cultivation of intelligence, fine sentiment, and -straight character has nothing whatever to do with the question -whether the mind of man is or is not divisible into parts, or has or -has not "inertia": which are the only philosophic distinctions -between matter and spirit that I have discovered. The tradition of the -spirituality of the mind is responsible for this confusion. _If_ the -mind is a spirit, then spirit is assuredly the source of the finest -things in life, and is far superior to matter. But that is just the -question at issue; and it really does not matter two pins for -practical purposes whether the mind is extended and inert (in the -scientific sense), or unextended and devoid of inertia. One has only -to substitute clear conceptions for vague terms, and the whole -controversy is reduced to absurdity. Whichever side wins in the -academic battle about the nature of mind, it remains as true as ever -that the cultivation of mind is one of the most important aims that -men can set up. Why on earth should we be less disposed to cultivate -the mind of the race if some sudden turn of scientific advance were to -prove it "a function of the brain"? It remains true that our race -owes the position it occupies entirely to mind: that our civilisation -owes its ascendancy over barbarism to mind: and that we rely entirely -on the further cultivation of mind--of intelligence, will, and -emotion--to destroy those shams which impede our progress and curtail -our prosperity and happiness. It is ludicrous to say that we cannot -thus cultivate mind unless we believe it to be an indivisible and -incomprehensible and indefinable something. It would, in fact, be less -absurd to say that we should have more confidence in our power to -cultivate mind if we regarded it as an organic function, subject to -definite treatment. - -As to the lapse of a belief in personal immortality, it is not less -absurd to say that this would paralyse our efforts. As Ruskin says on -the point: "The shortness of life is not, to any rational person, a -conclusive reason for wasting the space of it which may be granted -him." That magnificent preface to _The Crown of Wild Olive_ ought -long ago to have silenced these dismal sophists. The fact is, that -this age of ours, in proportion as it grows indifferent to the old -legends and the appeals of the clergy, rises toward heights which man -never climbed before. The clergy are most amusingly puzzled. Popes -tell us that we are children of perdition, reeling into an earthly -abyss, to say nothing of a deeper beyond: archbishops say that we are -just beginning to realise the true import of Christ's teaching. The -candid man or woman will look searchingly for himself or herself into -the heart of our age, and, if he or she have an accurate knowledge of -earlier ages, will recognise that it throbs with a human idealism, -tenderness, and sympathy which have been unknown in Europe since the -old pagans departed. - -Let me end on that note. The religious person will close this work, if -he perseveres to the end, with a series of horrified exclamations. -Socialism! Immoralism! Republicanism! Materialism! Malthusianism! I -shudder under the shower of horrid epithets, yet would ask this -outraged reader to forget "'isms" for a moment and consider a -simple statement of the human faith I here present. - -The ideals which I hold in supreme regard are truth in our beliefs and -statements, justice and generosity in our actions, the co-operation of -all men to make the earth happier. I am in temperament no hedonist. -Thirty years of assiduous study, of much severe trial, of stoical -endurance have left me more or less insensible to what men and women -usually call happiness. My personal desires are sated in that I may, -in circumstances of peace and modest comfort, devote myself to -intellectual labour and the employment in the cause of progress of -such influence as I have. I see no purpose imposed on life, and I -therefore conclude that men and women are free to put such purpose on -their collective life as they deem advisable. No purpose seems to be -wiser, grander, or more inspiring than that they should seek to -assuage the last pang of remediable pain and bring sunshine into the -dark places of the earth. For me there is no heaven; and therefore the -spectacle of those thousands passing daily and nightly into the -silence, after lives of pain, misery, or brutality, while we cling to -the barbaric traditions or ill-devised institutions that have come -down to us, is an intolerable goad. Let us have criticism and scrutiny -of all that we do and all that we believe; and let us have courage to -reject all that we think false and purify all that we find corrupted. -Let us assert that mighty power of which we are conscious; and, if it -take ages to undo all the errors of the past and agree upon a plan of -a regenerated earth, let us at least strive to awaken men to a -consciousness of their power and of the evils they have to remove. -These are my suggestions of what is wrong in life and how it may be -righted. It may be materialism, this plain human gospel of mine; but -it seems to me that, if it could be carried into effect, there would -spread gradually over this earth such joy and freedom and prosperity -as men's prophets have babbled of in their dying dreams. - -[The End] - -TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES. - -Alterations to the text: - -A few spelling corrections. - -[End of Book] - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Tyranny of Shams, by Joseph McCabe - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TYRANNY OF SHAMS *** - -***** This file should be named 62961-0.txt or 62961-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/9/6/62961/ - -Produced by David Thomas -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/62961-0.zip b/old/62961-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b27374d..0000000 --- a/old/62961-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62961-h.zip b/old/62961-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f905f90..0000000 --- a/old/62961-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62961-h/62961-h.htm b/old/62961-h/62961-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 6c58e1a..0000000 --- a/old/62961-h/62961-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,8550 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" version="-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" xml:lang="en"> -<head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <title> - The Tyranny of Shams, by Joseph McCabe - </title> - <style type="text/css"> - -/* headers and divisions */ - - h1,h2,h3 {margin:3em 0em 1em 0em; page-break-before:always; text-align:center;} - - .nobreak {margin-top:1em; page-break-before:avoid;} - - body {margin-left:5%; margin-right:5%;} - - div.title {margin-left:5%; margin-right:5%; text-align:center;} - -/* main */ - - p {margin:0em 0em 0em 0em; text-align:justify; text-indent:2em;} - p.noindent {text-indent:0em; } - p.end {margin:1em 0em 0em 0em; text-align:center; text-indent:0em;} - p.signature2 {margin:0em 2em 0em 0em; text-align:right; text-indent:0em;} - - .right {text-align:right;} - - span.chapsubtitle {font-size:65%; margin:1em 0em 0em 0em;} - - span.sc - {font-variant:small-caps;} - -/* for quoted poems */ - div.quote_o {font-size:95%; margin:0.5em 0em 0.5em 0em; text-align:center;} - div.quote_i {display:inline-block; text-align:left;} - - span.i0 {display:block; margin:0em 0em 0em 2em; text-indent:-2em;} - - </style> -</head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Tyranny of Shams, by Joseph McCabe - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Tyranny of Shams - -Author: Joseph McCabe - -Release Date: August 17, 2020 [EBook #62961] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TYRANNY OF SHAMS *** - - - - -Produced by David Thomas - - - - - -</pre> - - - -<div class="title"> -<h1> -THE<br/> -TYRANNY OF SHAMS -</h1> - -BY<br/> -JOSEPH McCABE<br/> -<br/><br/><br/> -NEW YORK<br/> -DODD, MEAD & COMPANY<br/> -1916<br/> -</div> - - -<h2> -PREFACE. -</h2> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">This</span> book is a frank criticism of most of the dominant ideas and -institutions of our time: a confession of faith in nearly all the more -daring heresies which hold, so to say, the firing line of our -literature: a conception of a new social order and new planetary -arrangement. It is therefore candidly egoistic, and I should like to -explain the circumstances in which it was designed and written. -</p> - -<p> -It was conceived, and much of it was written, during the long voyage -from Australia to England. At that time I had issued, if I may include -the introduction to English readers of foreign writers, some fifty -publications, and in these I had generally described remote periods of -history, or even remoter periods of the earth’s story or distant -regions of the universe. Many had asked me to tell them things more -intimate and important than the way in which stars were formed, or the -manners of extinct Dinosaurs and ancient empresses: asked if thirty -years’ study of philosophy, science, and history had given me no -interest in, or light upon, the problems of the hour. In Australasia -this request was made more insistently than ever. Our ancient -prejudices have been transplanted into the soil of the new world, and -they have thriven there, like the gorse, the sparrow, the rabbit, and -so many other pests which sentimental colonists have introduced in -order to remind them of “home.” But new ideas also have been -imported, and they find a rich soil in the free, unconventional, -enterprising colonial mind. Men and women are asking the same -questions there as in London and New York. -</p> - -<p> -The general drift or implication of these questions obsessed me daily -during the slow traverse of the Southern Ocean. Day after day the -great liner visibly rounded this vast ball of metal which we call our -earth; and to me there is no more impressive symbol than this of the -power and the future of man. Some complain that at sea they feel the -earth and man and man’s concerns made trivial by the great fires -which blaze through the darker sky. But largeness is not greatness, -and a vast prairie in some inaccessible region does not make less -precious the little plot of earth at your door that you can make -beautiful. Your predominant feeling, when you round the globe and see -with your own eye its limitations, is one of power. This sphere, you -feel, is the principality of man; and there never was a power so -despotic and far-reaching as the power of a united race would be. You -fed as if the earth could be embraced in the arms of a giant, and -humanity is the giant. If men were agreed in their designs, the earth -would be as clay in the hand of the potter. It would prove as passive -and tractable as the child’s ball of plasticine—if all, or the -great part of, men and women were agreed as to the shape it was -desirable to impose on it. In our age differences of ideal restrain -the hand and prevent us from giving a fairer face to the earth. The -power of a united mankind would be something akin to omnipotence. -Every man or woman who has seen the earth with this larger vision must -seethe with impatience to end this conflict of old traditions and new -ideas which paralyses our hands; to do what he or she can to -accelerate that final harmony of conviction which will set free the -fingers of the Great Potter. That is the controlling sentiment of this -little book. -</p> - -<p> -It happens that, before the book reaches the public, one of those -traditions which it assails has spread a ghastly devastation over the -face of the earth. For nearly twenty years I have used my slender -opportunities as speaker and writer to denounce the military machine: -to imagine the mighty resources we waste on militarism and war -transferred to those enterprises which seek to brighten the earth and -make the hearts of men and women lighter. Now the little sermon, which -many feeble voices were preaching, is taken up by an orator whose -voice thunders from pole to pole, whose words are blood-curdling -realities. Ten thousand million sterling, perhaps, poured into the sea -in eighteen months: ten million men, perhaps, prematurely blasted off -the earth or stricken for life: and a trail of blood and tears and -misery that all the mighty fertility of the earth will take a -generation to obliterate! Nor does this outpour of horror merely mean -that <i>one</i> feature of our life needs reconsideration. We could not -have retained this military machine, with its ever-present danger of -an appalling calamity, if our minds were generally sane, alert, -unclogged by shams. -</p> - -<p> -One inquires how it is that a generation which boasts of its wisdom -and humanity can retain this worst survival of barbarism, and one -finds that the evil is connected with a dozen other evils and -protected by a general mental debility. The habit of tracing this -calamity to the peculiar criminality of another nation, and dwelling -only on our own heroism and self-sacrifice in meeting this menace, is -in itself a very grave danger. We may be entirely certain that, as -long as we retain the military machinery for settling quarrels, there -will be wars. How came the machinery to linger amongst us in the -twentieth century? At once we light upon a dozen other disorders of -our life. This remissness in civilising international intercourse -argues a grave indifference to a most important task on the part of -our political servants, and an equally grave absence of pressure and -direction on the part of their supporters. It reveals a dangerously -slovenly condition of our industrial world, a very serious defect in -our educational system, a standing menace in the encouraged -thoughtlessness of the mass of our people, a general flabbiness, -haziness, and anæmia of what may be called the intellectual part of -our public life. -</p> - -<p> -This is true of all nations,—it may be the turn of the United States, -or Norway, or Argentina tomorrow,—but it is most seriously true of -England. Do not let us fuddle our minds with the kind of rhetoric one -addresses to schoolboys. We have, in the first year of the war, -betrayed a sluggishness, a lack of foresight and initiative, a -feebleness of organisation, which ought to sober any race, however -wealthy. Our Government knew, or ought to have known, since the spring -of 1912, that just this war was threatening us; and, when it occurred, -they made a virtue of the fact that we were “the least prepared -nation in Europe.” They took nine months to begin to organise our -resources, or to perceive that it was necessary to do so. Plainly, -there is something profoundly, comprehensively wrong with our public -life. We shall “muddle through,” because we have the resources, -and because the Allies outnumber their opponents by fifty per cent. -But if in a future war we are compelled to face a numerically equal -opponent, England will, if she retains these faults, see her royal -standard in the dust. As it is, the cost of our ineptitude will be -prodigious. -</p> - -<p> -So I am confirmed in my design to declare what seems to me to be wrong -with our life. I choose the form of a direct challenge of old -traditions mainly because they so oppress and benumb the public mind -that new ideals do not get a fair consideration. But it will be found -that behind the series of challenges there is a series of -affirmations, and these make up a constructive ideal of life. Probably -few will accept this ideal in its entirety, though each chapter -advocates a reform which has millions of adherents. It is, however, -not based on any ’ism, least of all on dogmatism. There is a view -of, or attitude toward, life expounded in the first chapter, and -behind each particular claim. But each section deals with a specific -department of life and must find its justification within the limits -of that department. If any regret that the work does not embody a -profound philosophy of life, I must reply that I passed through -philosophy thirty years ago, and came out into science and history in -search of reality: and that philosophers do not seem to me to be -either agreed among themselves or in any close relationship to the -human problems I discuss. -</p> - -<p> -Many will advise me, too, that a man would do well to conceal the more -offensive of his heresies, in order to gain a more patient hearing for -the others. That is the usual and prudent practice, no doubt; but this -book has been written in a mood of fiery impatience with untruth, and -this has forbidden compromise. Night by night, as I sit on the deck of -the ship, I watch the dark purple pall drop swiftly over the last -flush of the tropical sky; and I know that, each night, it shrouds the -faces of thousands of men, women, and children whose chance of -happiness is gone for ever. We are arguing to-day about man’s -ailments just as the Greeks were arguing in the Agora at Athens two -thousand years ago, or as men argued in the garden of Plato or of -Epicurus. Meantime almost countless millions have lived in pain and -squalor, and died in delusive hope, under the curse of those ancient -traditions which we will not discard. Therefore I am impatient: I -cannot sit in quiet enjoyment of the sunshine that is granted me. It -will be found that no man appraises more highly than I the advance we -have made in modern times, and that I nowhere exaggerate the darker -features of life. If at times I write fiercely, cynically, even -bitterly, it is not from pessimism, but from fulness and fire of -optimism. My controlling thought is, as I said, a consciousness of our -power. -</p> - -<p> -There are two types of people into whose hands this book may fall. The -first is the man or woman whose nerves must not be disturbed by the -spectacle of the misery of less fortunate beings: who finds life good, -and instinctively resents any proposals to tamper with its -foundations. These people are no more open to blame, as a rule, than -the prophet is entitled to praise for his ardour. We do not choose our -temperament, whatever else we choose. But one does not appeal to these -comfortable people. They would have refined and pleasant things about -them always, and they shrink from the vaults where, they dimly know, -ugly and sordid and writhing things are crowded together: lest their -glance fall on some yellow and distorted face whose hollow cheeks, or -eyes bloodshot with pain or brutality, would disturb the even pleasure -of their lives. So be it. Let it be written in stark letters on their -marble stones, when the last peach has dropped from their relaxing -fingers: My ideal was to enjoy life, and to let the devil take the -hindmost. -</p> - -<p> -Do not let me be misunderstood. The enjoyment of life is the supreme -ideal advocated in this book. I loathe asceticism, either Christian or -Stoic. But I write for the second type of man or woman: the people who -are strong and healthy enough to enjoy every pleasure that life -affords, yet keep some thought for the unhappiness of others: who -think it a normal part even of a pleasant and refined life, especially -a leisured life, to spare some hours for seeking how the world may be -improved for less fortunate folk: who, precisely because they love the -sunlight, ask if it cannot be devised that all men and women and -children shall have a larger share of it. Their chief difficulty is -that, unhappily, the new prophets are as discordant as the old. A few -centuries ago, when you crossed London Bridge, or the Pont Neuf at -Paris, or the Ponte Vecchio at Florence, a score of rival quacks or -charlatans (in the literal sense) cried in your ears the virtues of -their conflicting remedies. To-day just so many conflicting social -physicians cry their wares in the streets. They oppose each other -almost as bitterly as they oppose the older traditions. How shall a -busy man or woman decide among them? What fixed and unalterable -principle, in this world of dissolving creeds, can you adopt for the -testing of their truth or untruth? -</p> - -<p> -A very grave and sincere difficulty. Therefore, again, I have chosen -to attack what seem to me to be shams: which I would define as -untruths that the millions venerate as truths. The work of reform will -proceed very slowly and very precariously until these are resolutely -discredited and dethroned. In each case, it is true, it will be found -that the dethronement of an error enthrones a truth; but I insist that -we will pay no grave and practical attention to constructive schemes -until we fully realise the blunders and brutalities of our present -civilisation. The discord of our social prophets does not excuse us -from perceiving these. -</p> - -<p> -As to fixed and unalterable principles, it seems to me that two, at -least, are not disturbed by the ground-quakes of our time. Perhaps -they stand with more conspicuous firmness when so many other -“eternal verities” have fallen. The first is the principle of -truthfulness or sincerity. Of this it need be said only that, if there -are any parts of our human tradition which the larger mind of our age -discovers to be untrue, they ought to be rejected at once; and the -more closely they are woven into our social fabric, the more speedily -and more apprehensively they ought to be torn out. The second and -greater principle is the aim of arresting suffering and diffusing -happiness as far as possible. I will consider this presently, and -merely state here that these chapters have been written solely in the -name and under the inspiration of that ideal. And if my words are at -times violent, the violence is due solely to a great eagerness for the -speedier coming of a brighter and more intelligent age and to a -sincere abhorrence of cant and shams and all that lengthens this grey -twilight of civilisation. -</p> - -<p class="signature2"> -J. M. -</p> - - -<h2> -CONTENTS. -</h2> - -<div class="quote_o"><div class="quote_i"> -<table summary="Table of Contents"> - <tr> - <th><b><span class="sc">Chap.</span></b></th> - <th></th> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch01">I.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch01"><span class="sc">The Philosophy of Revolt</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch02">II.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch02"><span class="sc">The Military Sham</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch03">III.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch03"><span class="sc">The Follies of Sham Patriotism</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch04">IV.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch04"><span class="sc">Political Shams</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch05">V.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch05"><span class="sc">The Distribution of Wealth</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch06">VI.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch06"><span class="sc">Idols of the Home</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch07">VII.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch07"><span class="sc">The Future of Woman</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch08">VIII.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch08"><span class="sc">Shams of the School</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch09">IX.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch09"><span class="sc">The Education of the Adult</span></a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="right"><a href="#ch10">X.</a></td> - <td><a href="#ch10"><span class="sc">The Clerical Sham</span></a></td> - </tr> -</table> -</div></div> - - -<h2> -THE TYRANNY OF SHAMS -</h2> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="ch01"> -CHAPTER I.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">THE PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLT</span> -</h3> - -<p> -[This chapter is, with a few alterations, reproduced from <i>The -English Review</i>, October 1914.] -</p> - -<p><br/></p> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">Although</span> this work does not embody any system of speculation about -the universe, any creed or ’ism or large and abstruse set of -principles, it must begin with a careful study of the phenomenon of -revolt. Never before was there such an age of general and feverish -restlessness; never was there such quaking of the deepest foundations -of old institutions, such tottering of thrones and altars. From every -intellectual centre the disturbing waves radiate. Round London, -Berlin, and New York the rumbling is habitual. Already they perceive -it in Tokyo and Peking and Constantinople. Tomorrow it will break on -the ear in Teheran and Lhasa. The same questions are asked all over -the earth. I have discussed them with millionaires at the Ritz and -with great ladies at Claridge’s: with students in their universities -and miners in their cottages: with learned professors in Rome or New -York, and with notorious anarchists in obscure corners of Paris: with -working girls in Melbourne, with Maoris in Wellington, with Chinese -and Hindus and alert, full-blooded Africans. I have been invited to -discuss them with a Polynesian princess and to lecture on them in -Fiji, and I have had letters on them from Japanese settlers in British -Columbia and negro tailors in British Guiana. The same questions -everywhere: religious doctrines and political forms, education and -industry, marriage and woman—almost every ideal and institution we -have inherited. And the persistent note that resounds from continent -to continent is the note of rebellion. -</p> - -<p> -Very different feelings are inspired by this characteristic fact of -modern life. To some it seems that this melting of the rigid framework -of traditions is a welcome sign of spring and growth: that a long -winter, which had slowed the blood of the earth and retarded the -development of civilisation, is over at last, and little, shapeless, -promising shoots of new ideals are rising from the loosened soil. To -others it seems as if the binding fabric of our civilisation were -weakened and we were in danger of returning to barbarism. Surely those -old traditions did hold together the structure of our civilisation? -And surely it is impossible to replace in a few generations the links -of a planet-wide human society? The shades of dead Memphis and Babylon -and Nineveh, of Athens and Rome and Bagdad, of Venice and Genoa and -Florence, pass before their anxious eyes. In each case, they remind -us, this same moral, social, and intellectual restlessness preceded -death. -</p> - -<p> -The inevitable specialism of our age adds to the confusion. Life is a -connected whole, yet neither research nor reform can now be other than -sectional. We devote ourselves to a candid study of some particular -reform, and we find it a thoroughly reasonable proposal, a deduction -from principles that we are bound to admit. But we have not had -leisure to discover the indisputable principles of other reforms; and, -when we hear the demand of change and progress rising on one side -after another—in the Church, the State, the Home, the School, and so -on—we remark sententiously that rebellion is becoming a fashion, that -our generation is getting feverish or neurotic, that we must insist on -authority somewhere. We repeat plausible phrases about the decay of -respect and the wisdom of the race. We fasten on symptoms of -disorder—without inquiring very closely whether the disorder is new -or has been recently aggravated—and we conclude that conservatism is -a social duty: that, at all events, we will admit reform only by the -inch. We fancy ourselves the guardians of the <i>palladium</i>. -</p> - -<p> -Quite apart from purely selfish motives, some of the closest observers -of our age do differ radically in diagnosis and prescription. The same -movements are symptoms of health to one man, symptoms of disease to -another. Take the enlargement of divorce, the decay of clerical -authority, the industrial revolt, or the rebellion of women. There -seems to be no common ground left on which the observers may meet with -any hope of agreement. The old religious and political standards will -now hopelessly divide any roomful of educated men and women. You -propose, perhaps, to fall back on moral standards—the ground on which -“all reasonable people” unite—and someone quotes against you half -a dozen of the most brilliant writers of Europe and America. Hopes and -lamentations, inspired by precisely the same facts of life, mingle -confusedly in our literature, and men and women of large heart and -little leisure seem to be condemned to a sterile perplexity or a -selfish absorption in business and pleasure. What, at all events, is -the meaning or purpose of life? And how is this spreading rebellion -related to it? -</p> - -<p> -First let us examine the grounds of the very distressing forecasts of -the Conservative. In the vast majority of cases that are worth -examining one will find that the pessimism has not very firm -foundations. Your dismal prophet is usually a man with an ancient -gospel which we are discarding, or a new gospel which does not attract -us. The appeal to the modern world, he realises, must be utilitarian: -he must show us that, without him, we perish. So he recklessly heaps -up before our eyes statistics of crime and consumption and lunacy and -alcohol: he makes weird and totally inaccurate statements about France -or the United States or some other country: he marshals the shades of -dead empires—which seem to have died of a wonderful complication of -modern maladies—before us with appropriate rhetoric. -</p> - -<p> -Now to this kind of conservatism, which says that we are decaying, I -reply that, on every positive test of national health, we are more -flourishing than we ever were before. Dark as the earth is, it was -never brighter than it is to-day, or more full of promise for the -morrow. The war is not inconsistent with this general statement, as I -will show later. A failure to advance in one direction does not alter -the fact that we have advanced in a hundred others; and the gross -behaviour of one nation does not destroy the gain that half a dozen -other nations were ready to behave with a new decency in warfare. As -to that “lesson of history” which is stridently read to us by men -and women whose command of history is not otherwise conspicuous, I -would remind them that the civilisation of dead empires always reached -its height just before, or at the time when, they began to decay. Does -anyone suggest that we ought not further to develop our civilisation -lest we also decay? However, I have sufficiently discussed elsewhere -this nonsense about “laws of history”; and I will show later that -these older empires decayed, not because of their high development of -intellect and fine sentiment, which leads to revolt, but from the -natural defect of those very institutions which our conservatives -defend. -</p> - -<p> -We are not decaying. England is, for every class of its citizens, an -immeasurably finer place to live in than it was a hundred years ago. I -speak on the strength of a rigorous comparison of the moral and social -life of England a century ago with that of modern England, but I -cannot give the facts here. Let it suffice to make plain that I have -no sympathy with pessimists and preachers of penance and austerity, of -any school. The world improves, and improves more rapidly than it ever -did before. What stirs one’s impatience is the consciousness that we -could, and do not, move with infinitely greater speed: that we -tolerate abuses and shams which insult our intelligence and mock our -professions of humanity. -</p> - -<p> -What, then, are the grounds of the optimistic view of this widespread -revolt? Let us admit that conservatism, in the sense of an attitude of -caution, is a virtue. We would not try unknown drugs on the life of an -individual, and we ought not to apply untried recipes to the life of -forty million people. Yet it is precisely from this medical world that -we gather valuable hints of progress. By two centuries of sober and -heroic labour the physician has brought the greater part of our -maladies under control. He would tell you, in private, that he has a -hope of eventually being able to check all disease and prolong life. -The <i>laissez-faire</i> attitude is unknown in medical science. It is -unknown in our technical and commercial worlds. We have made -stupendous progress, not by conserving, but by innovating: not asking -if a machine or a system worked well, but if we could devise a better. -In science—in all on which we pride ourselves in modern -civilisation—we have followed the progressive principle: we have -cultivated revolt. Since we began to do so, we have raised the level -of our civilisation in each generation. -</p> - -<p> -It is therefore not surprising that many are asking whether we ought -not to extend the progressive principle to our religions, moralities, -politics, economic systems, schools, domestic and civic and social -traditions. It is, in other words, quite natural that there should be -a demand for, not one reform only, but a hundred reforms, in modern -life. We are justly, wisely proud of what is distinctive and superior -in our civilisation: advance, better organisation, economy of waste, -greater efficiency. The mystery is that so many would restrict this -improvement to what they call the “lower” material departments of -life, and keep a strict guard against the reformer at the frontiers of -their spiritual or political world. The modern rebellion is a very -logical effort to apply these very successful principles to as much of -life as is susceptible of improvement. -</p> - -<p> -This effort, further, coincides with the quite dominant and -characteristic note of modern culture: evolution. We forget sometimes -that until half a century ago Europe was oppressed by an entirely -wrong view of the earth’s resources. Plato put a philosophic -anathema on the earth. This material mass, he said, was a barren -thing. Order, truth, beauty, love had to come to it, in fitful gleams, -from a world beyond, over which man had no control. We know now that -Plato was wrong. Order, truth, beauty, and love have developed on the -earth—they are “sublunary” things—and man can control their -sources and enlarge their proportions. They do not properly make men -great: men make them great. They are as surely under our direction as -are applied science and commerce and the franchise. We can cultivate -them as we now cultivate pansies or sheep. It depends on <i>us</i> if lies -and disorder and dishonour are to linger among us, or if truth and -justice and beauty are to prevail. -</p> - -<p> -Again therefore it is quite natural that we should hear a demand for a -more extensive use of these powers of ours. The ships and ploughs and -illuminants of a hundred years ago were made by the same men, or the -same generations of men, as the religions and polities and moralities -of the time. Why assume that the wisdom of the race was almost -infallible in its spiritual and more difficult creations, but capable -of enormous improvement on the material side? Conservatism, as -anything more than an attitude of caution and prudence, has not a -plausible air. -</p> - -<p> -It is well also to regard the essential or characteristic line of -human evolution. Apart from a few who are caught by a transient -attempt to glorify instinct, we agree that the development of -intelligence is one of the main sources of progress. Now this great -and general awakening of intelligence in recent decades was bound to -lead to a good deal of challenging of old traditions. That was -precisely why the grandfathers of our bishops and peers opposed it. -This higher intelligence of the race is now assisted in its decisions -by a vastly greater and more accurate knowledge of man and the -universe than our grandparents had; and the cheapening of literature -dimly conveys this knowledge to millions who were left out of account -when the traditional maps of life were drafted. The artisan discusses -economics and theology. The Tonga Islander works out mathematical -problems. I met a pure-blooded negro, with a European degree in -philosophy, who told me that he had been forced to resign his chair in -an African Mohammedan college because of his advanced ideas! Once I -discussed with a group of miners industrial questions and religion -from twelve to three in the morning, over pots of beer, in a little -inn on the west coast of New Zealand, a hundred miles from anything -like a town. -</p> - -<p> -It is quite impossible for this spreading and better informed -intelligence to bow humbly to the ideas of an earlier generation. It -is going to think for itself, at all events. The old traditions must -be revised throughout. Revision is not particularly dangerous except -to errors. And already we have discovered that our political and -religious and social oracles have been teaching a good deal of error. -We begin to suspect that many things the divine right of kings and the -eternal torment of the wicked may not be strictly accurate. We had -better reconsider all our ways of living. -</p> - -<p> -The second permanent strain of human evolution is the development of -fine sentiment. The notion that the world is becoming more -preponderantly intellectual, and that progress along our present lines -means a limitation of sentiment, is inaccurate. We are working toward -a healthy equilibrium. Sentimental people—those in whom a starving of -intellect or disuse of muscle has surcharged the nervous system with -morbid energy—will become more balanced, more intellectual. Ancient -phrases and modern shibboleths will not be able to induce in them an -instinctive warmth or agitation: they will have to pass the bar of -reason before they reach what one might call the executive department -of personality. But sentiment—deep and healthy feeling—has a -precious use in life. The development of fine sentiment is as -necessary as the cultivation of reason to the advance of man and of -civilisation. We find this illustrated in all the older civilisations -when they reach their highest point. We are picking up this strain of -development to-day, and, since civilisation is now too widely diffused -ever to perish again, we may assume that it will continue. Now this -finer sentiment of our time demands the revision of our traditions and -institutions no less imperiously than our higher intelligence does. We -cannot leave behind the callousness and brutality of the Middle Ages -and at the same time retain medieval practices. Intellectually and -emotionally we are improving, and we must expect that, as our finer -powers grow, there will be an increasing demand for revision and -reconstruction. As Mr. Watson finely says: -</p> - -<div class="quote_o"><div class="quote_i"> -<span class="i0">“Guests of the ages, at tomorrow’s door</span> -<span class="i0">Why shrink we? The long track behind us lies,</span> -<span class="i0">The lamps gleam and the music throbs before,</span> -<span class="i0">Bidding us enter; and I count him wise</span> -<span class="i0">Who loves so well man’s noble memories</span> -<span class="i0">He needs must love man’s nobler hopes yet more.”</span> -</div></div> - -<p> -This is, I think, a correct analysis of the innovating spirit of -modern times. These general considerations to which it is due are -quite beyond discussion. One feels that one is almost perpetrating -platitudes in describing them. In fact, we would to-day find only a -negligible number of people who oppose progress and innovation -altogether. They usually oppose it in one or two departments of life, -and quite warmly applaud it in others. A Socialist-Ritualist -clergyman, for instance, fiercely demands advance in the economic -field, yet fences his own department of life with the most rigorous -warnings against innovating trespassers. A Rationalist-Individualist -feels that the Church is the most obvious and urgent field for -innovation, and at the same time guards his economic world against it -with a flaming sword. A Suffragist pours fiery scorn on our obstinate -conservatism in regard to the franchise, and then discovers an even -more obstinate and entirely sacred conservatism when other women claim -something more than political emancipation. It is this very general -sectarianism which compels us to review the philosophy of revolt. -These principles apply to the whole of life. All our institutions must -be critically examined. The searchlight will not injure them if they -are sound. -</p> - -<p> -But how comes this sweetly reasonable philosophy to be converted into -that passion for reform, that mordant and exasperating attack on -institutions, which gives a special complexion to the literature of -our time? For precisely the same reason as the invisible electric -current leaps into incandescence when it passes through the sluggish -particles of the filament of carbon or tungsten: resistance. The old -faith is growing dim in our minds, and we have a suspicion that the -thousands of men and women who, each night, terminate a life of pain -or struggle or burden, wilt never see the sun rise again, on this or -any other planet. We know that every decade in which we put off, with -worn and hollow phrases, the abandonment of old errors, sees another -generation pass away with just the same scars and traces of pain as -those which scored the hearts of the dead two, and four, and six -thousand years ago. We are vividly conscious that, quite apart from -the myriads whose lives were embittered by poverty, or war, or a -galling marriage-yoke, or the tyranny of some old tradition, there are -further and vaster myriads who, whatever comfort they knew, might have -been far happier, and now the sun has gone down on them for ever. -There is real and very serious ground for impatience. The acreage of -squalor and misery and grossness is still appalling, and on every land -lies the crushing burden of militarism; and this fearful visitation of -war reminds us of the incalculable periodic cost of our folly. The -soil of the planet is wet with blood and tears, and a great part of -this inhuman rain might be arrested. Much has been done: it is just -that which stings. You cannot look back on the darkness from which the -race has issued without perceiving that man has the power to transform -the face of the earth: without entertaining a reasoned and coldly -intellectual conviction that a day will yet dawn on this planet when -laughter, as of children on May morning, will ring from pole to pole, -and life, for all its work, will be a holiday. And when this reasoned -and just belief encounters the sullen or selfish indifference of men -and women to their creative power, their insensitiveness to the evils -that they or their fellows endure, it glows and spits fire. -</p> - -<p> -It is quite easy to apologise for strong language: much easier than to -justify the general lack of it. And this impatience cannot be rebuked -by reminding us that the remedy of some of our ills is very obscure; -because the majority of people are indifferent to the very idea of -reform. They shoulder burdens which they might at any moment lay aside -for ever. Some of the greatest reforms that are pressed on us are not -obscured by any serious controversy. Yet in every civilised nation the -mass of the people are inert and indifferent. Some even make a -pretence of justifying their inertness. Why, they ask, should we stir -at all? Is there such a thing as a duty to improve the earth? What is -the meaning or purpose of life? Or has it a purpose? -</p> - -<p> -One generally finds that this kind of reasoning is merely a piece of -controversial athletics or a thin excuse for idleness. People tell you -that the conflict of science and religion—it would be better to say, -the conflict of modern culture and ancient traditions—has robbed life -of its plain significance. The men who, like Tolstoi, seriously urge -this point fail to appreciate the modern outlook on life. Certainly -modern culture—science, history, philosophy, and art—finds no -purpose in life: that is to say, no purpose eternally fixed and to be -discovered by man. A great chemist said a few years ago that he could -imagine “a series of lucky accidents”—the chance blowing by the -wind of certain chemicals into pools on the primitive -earth—accounting for the first appearance of life; and one might not -unjustly sum up the influences which have lifted those early germs to -the level of conscious beings as a similar series of lucky accidents. -</p> - -<p> -But it is sheer affectation to say that this demoralises us. If there -is no purpose impressed on the universe, or prefixed to the -development of humanity, it follows only that humanity may choose its -own purpose and set up its own goal; and the most elementary sense of -order will teach us that this choice must be social, not merely -individual. In whatever measure ill-controlled individuals may yield -to personal impulses or attractions, the aim of the race must be a -collective aim. I do not mean an austere demand of self-sacrifice from -the individual, but an adjustment—as genial and generous as -possible—of individual variations for common good. Otherwise life -becomes discordant and futile, and the pain and waste react on each -individual. So we raise again, in the twentieth century, the old -question of “the greatest good,” which men discussed in the Stoa -Poikile and the suburban groves of Athens, in the cool <i>atria</i> of -patrician mansions on the Palatine and the Pincian, in the Museum at -Alexandria, and the schools which Omar Khayyám frequented, in the -straw-strewn schools of the Middle Ages and the opulent chambers of -Cosmo de’ Medici. -</p> - -<p> -We answer, as men did in all those earlier debates, according to our -temperament. One says culture, another character, another happiness, -another pleasure, another efficiency. This discussion is often a mere -exercise of wit, and very often we use a quite arbitrary standard in -fixing what is “best,” or the greatest good. Probably the modern -mind will put to itself the plain question: “What is the best -purpose for the race, in its own interest, to adopt?” As we are not -now clear that there are any other interests to be consulted, this is -the obvious form of the question. And when we do put it in this form, -the old conflict begins to disappear. We see that a comprehensive -ideal, embracing all the classical answers, commends itself. We want -more—we want as much as possible—culture, character, happiness, -pleasure, and efficiency. We want a quicker and fuller development of -man’s highest and richest resources. But, if you look closely into -it, there is one ultimate and commanding element in this broad ideal. -It is happiness. Culture is a necessity of the race and luxury of the -few. Character is supremely important, but you have now to prove to -men that it is important. We do not bow any longer to arbitrary -commands and categorical imperatives and Stoic laws. We have to be -convinced that the cultivation of a high type of character will lessen -suffering and brighten the earth. Pleasure, again, is, as Epicurus -insisted, only a part of a large ideal of happiness. There is, in -fact, no ground on which you can appeal to the mass of men to-day in -favour of cultivation or idealism except this ground that it makes for -greater happiness: and on that ground you may safely appeal to the -whole race. -</p> - -<p> -Sometimes, when you ascend the slopes of a range of hills,—the idea -occurred to me during a walk from Chamonix to Montanvert,—the mists -close round you, and the guiding peaks and contours are lost. Then, -perhaps, some point breaks through the clouds, and you stride on -confidently. This must apply to the most sceptical or nebulous mind of -our generation. The old dream of a co-operative effort to improve -life, to bring happiness to as many minds of mortals as we can reach, -shines above all the mists of the day. Through the ruins of creeds and -philosophies, which have for ages disdained it, we are retracing our -steps toward that height—just as the Athenians did two thousand years -ago. It rests on no metaphysic, no sacred legend, no disputable -tradition—nothing that scepticism can corrode or advancing knowledge -undermine. Its foundations are the fundamental and unchanging impulses -of our nature. Its features are as clear and attractive to the child as -to the philosopher. Philosophers will, of course, declare it -superficial; but we may remind them that all their supposed deeper -probing of reality, from Pythagoras to Bergson, has ended in a -confusion of contradictory guesses. Churchmen will declare with horror -that it is “materialistic”; and we may remind <i>them</i> that for -fifteen centuries they have taught Europe to place its highest good in -happiness. If the happiness they promised is getting doubtful, we make -sure of what we can. In truth, however, no nobler aim ever inspired -action, and none is so fitted to appeal to modern man. It is, in fact, -the mainspring of nearly all the progressive activity of our time. The -more doubtful all else becomes, the more determined men and women are -to be happy in this world. Thrones and creeds and institutions, even -moral codes, are brought to judgment to-day before that ideal. It is -more profitable to judge the living than the dead. -</p> - -<p> -This ideal is the chief inspiration of the rebellious temper of our -age. The revolt which burns in so much of the abler literature of our -time is an unselfish revolt, or non-selfish revolt: it is an outcome -of that larger spirit which conceives the self to be a part of the -general social organism, and it is therefore neither egoistic nor -altruistic. It finds a sanction in the new intelligence, and an -inspiration in the finer sentiments, of our generation, but the glow -which chiefly illumines it is the glow of the great vision of a -happier earth. It speaks of the claims of truth and justice, and -assails untruth and injustice, for these are elemental principles of -social life; but it appeals more confidently to the warmer sympathy -which is linking the scattered children of the race, and it urges all -to co-operate in the restriction of suffering and the creation of -happiness. The advance guard of the race, the men and women in whom -mental alertness is associated with fine feeling, cry that they have -reached Pisgah’s slope; and in increasing numbers men and women are -pressing on to see if it be really the Promised Land. That is the -spirit of the reform-movement of our times. Popes anathematise our -age, and the clergy of all sects bemoan its “materialism,” yet it -is exulting in a wider and higher idealism than any that ever yet -stirred the heart of man. For we now know from what dark and brutal -origins we came, and we feel that, if we advance only as we are -advancing, we may reach any height that any prophet ever yet saw in -his visions. -</p> - -<p> -It is very difficult to avoid what seem to be rhetorical phrases in -describing this age of ours: the age which some profess to find prosy -and materialistic in comparison with the earlier age when a handful of -plethoric landowners ruled England, and little children worked in -filthy rooms for twelve hours a day, and cut-throats, in most charming -costumes, slew each other in the fields of London. I have not the -least desire to use rhetoric; I do but express my feeling, and what I -take to be the feeling of “advanced” people generally, as it comes -to me. But in this poetry there is the solidity of scientific prose. -Some time ago I sailed slowly toward Teneriffe from the south. Eighty -miles away, on a fine morning, the summit of the Peak showed its -delicate contour in the clouds, hardly distinguishable from them. We -thought it an illusion, a simulating cloud, because far below the -summit the blue sky seemed to stretch from horizon to horizon. The -Peak floated in the air. But, as we drew nearer, the blue band below -it grew thinner, and at last it disclosed the massive bulk of the -supporting mountain. -</p> - -<p> -Speaking as a sober student of history and science, I say that this -dream of a brighter and happier earth rests on no less solid a -foundation. We see primitive man, blindly, and with infinite slowness, -move towards civilisation: we see civilisation slowly, with many a -tragic interruption, advance toward the modern age: and now we see the -pace quicken enormously, and we find a new consciousness of power and -a deliberate aim at higher things bear the race onward. The -reformer’s belief in the future is a scientific deduction from the -past. -</p> - -<p> -The failure of the mass of people to co-operate in the realisation of -this ideal is due, not to indolence or stupidity, but to the obsessing -influence of the old traditions. They choke the fires of the mind: -they make us insensible to the real enormity of a great deal of our -social arrangements. Hence it is that the reformer’s appeal is cast -so frequently in a negative or aggressive form. The most powerful -thing in our world is, not truth, but untruth; and the most important -thing in the world is to assail it. “Great is truth, and it will -prevail,” said an ancient writer. But the civilisation which gave -birth to that sentiment died, and all its promising young truths -perished with it, and Europe fell under the rule of lies for more than -a thousand years. Untruth is millennia older than truth. Its roots run -deep into the flesh of the heart, while the rootlets of truth are -struggling for a frail clasp in the intellect. Great is untruth, and -it will prevail—unless it is attacked unceasingly. No untruth ever -died a natural death. Being the sacred truth of yesterday, it is -usually entrenched in powerful corporations, embodied in the law and -life of nations, enshrined in the tenacious affections of the -millions. At one time you incurred sentence of death if you challenged -it: now you incur slander, misrepresentation, and mockery. The race -has been made docile to it by a kind of negative Eugenic—perhaps we -ought to say Cacogenic—selection. Yet nearly everything which the -majority venerate as truth to-day began its career as heresy and will -end it as lie. -</p> - -<p> -So the first task of the well-wisher of mankind is to distinguish -truth from untruth in our traditions. The story of man is a long story -of the tyranny of consecrated shams, with occasional intervals of -rebellion and advance to a higher stage. Rebellion is the salt of the -earth. There comes a time in the history of every civilisation when -the mind of a few rises high enough to survey critically that stream -of traditions in which the majority lazily float. Then comes the -inevitable revolt; hence the close kinship which we feel across the -ages with “the Preacher,” with Socrates, with Omar Khayyám, with -Erasmus, with Molière. We are at the same stage of evolution, with -the difference that we moderns have an immense mass of knowledge of -history and prehistory to aid us in testing the value of our -traditions. Already we have discarded scores of old dogmas: in -religion, politics, education, law, and every department of our common -life. It would be folly to attempt to fence off any province of our -life from this critical scrutiny. And since we obstinately retain many -traditions which a very high proportion of properly educated people -regard as unsound and mischievous, since these traditions are the -chief obstacle to the advance of the race, one of the most pressing -needs of our time is, surely, a stern campaign for the abolition of -this tyranny of shams. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch02"> -CHAPTER II.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">THE MILITARY SHAM</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">In</span> the original conception of this work militarism was selected as -the first sham to be assailed because it is at once the most costly -and the least excusable. The way to remove many of the blots on our -civilisation is by no means plain. A dozen conflicting theories -confront you, and each has a sufficiently large body of adherents to -entitle it to consideration. But there are others in regard to which a -large and practical measure of agreement has been reached. Here we do -not need so much the subtle dissection of arguments and proposals as -the kindling of that ardent and imperious sentiment which spurs a man -or a race to action. The evil is recognised: the way to remedy it is -sufficiently clear. What we need is, in the mass of the people, that -fiery resentment of a hated tyranny which will shake the lie from its -throne. -</p> - -<p> -The first, the gravest, the most flagrant and most vivid in our minds -at the moment of these obvious shams is war, with the military system -which it involves. Here there is no sacred legend of a divine origin -to confuse the minds of the ignorant. There are legends of divine -approval, it is true, but the clergy do not press them and they have -little influence. War is a practice or institution which we clearly -trace to the wild impulses and imperfect social forms of early man: -even to the sheer passion of the beast that was still strong in him. -No sophistry can obscure this bestial origin. We men and women of the -twentieth century cling to one feature, at least, of an age on which -we look back with high disdain: an age with which we would bitterly -resent any comparison in point of intelligence and feeling. We may try -to gild it with glittering phrases about a nation’s honour, but we -know, all the while, that the honour of a nation no more demands that -it shall dye its hands in the blood of a sister-nation than the honour -of an individual requires so barbaric a consolation. -</p> - -<p> -We maintain this sham in an age when mechanical progress has made such -strides that it has turned the industry of war into our chief and most -oppressive occupation. We cannot, with all our sacrifices, find the -means to carry out most urgent reforms in our social life; we cannot -put flesh on the bones and light in the eyes of poor children, or ease -the lives of worn workers and helpless widows; because we need these, -and even greater resources, to sharpen the sabre for our neighbour’s -throat and enlarge the calibre of the tube that will scatter a hail of -death. We have for years stood in such attitude confronting each -other, we civilised nations, that on any day of any year the bugle -might peal, and the soil and seas of Europe be reddened with blood, -and the pain which knows no remedy shoot through millions of homes; -and now the tragedy has opened, grimmer than the dourest prophet had -ever pictured it. Why have we done this? Ultimately, because man, the -primeval savage, knowing nothing of our systems of justice, laid it -down that the knife or the club was the guardian of a man’s honour -or property: proximately, because we of this highly cultivated age -enthrone still one of the most ghastly shams which barbarism succeeded -in enforcing on civilisation. -</p> - -<p> -I have described it as a characteristic of our age that we are rising -above the stream of traditions which flows from civilisation to -civilisation, and are discovering that some of its sources are -tainted. Now in the case of warfare this scrutiny of the origin and -course of our traditions is comparatively easy. What we have -discovered is so well known, and so little disputed, that it need -hardly be related. It may be useful to state, at least, that very -early man was probably not a combative and bloodthirsty savage. He -lives to-day in such lowly peoples as the Veddahs and the Yahgans, and -they are generally peaceful and averse from brawling. In this -primitive man, however, there slumbered all the impulsive passion of -earlier ancestors, and it was inevitable that a cultural rise should -awaken it. When men became organised in tribes, when they became -hunters and tillers of the soil, when they increased and wandered far -afield, quarrels arose over women and hunting grounds and other -necessaries, and the institution of warfare was established. Within -the tribe there was already some kind of court, as a rule, before -which a man could bring his neighbour for wrong-doing. For the quarrel -between tribe and tribe there was no judge: the verdict lay with the -heavier weapon and the stouter arm. Hence, the higher the intelligence -of the tribe, the more deadly and widespread became the carnage. -Ferocity became a useful social quality—a virtue, indeed, the supreme -virtue, or <i>virtus</i> (manliness)—and the primitive genius was expended -in making more cruel and lacerating the barbs of the arrow and the -spear. The administration of justice advanced, and a time came when -private vengeance, and even family feuds, were strictly forbidden and -regarded as crimes. But, while ten men might not go to war against ten -men, ten thousand would march out, with the sonorous blessing of their -priests, to the more barbaric butchery of war against ten thousand. -The mind had to grow larger, the heart more human, before the reign of -justice would be acknowledged in the relations of masses of men to -each other as well as in the relations of individuals. -</p> - -<p> -With the dawn of civilisation a terrible paradox occurred. Warfare was -not abolished, but made more destructive. Again we find this a natural -and intelligible development. Each early civilisation found itself -surrounded by barbaric tribes, with which no compact of justice could -be established or trusted. The great Stoic humanitarians of Rome, who -preached the brotherhood of men and denounced violence, dared not, in -the interest of civilisation, plead disarmament. There were, of -course, moral sophisms in support of this plain need. The profit of -aggression, the prestige of conquering, were adorned with phrases akin -to our “white man’s burden.” Yet it is true that until modern -times warfare could not have been abolished without grave danger to -civilisation. The crime of warfare became a crime only in these later -centuries. Now that fully three-fourths of the race are gathered into -civilised states, a compact of justice, an international tribunal with -an international executive, <i>is</i> possible; and we are guilty, either -of a base hypocrisy or a ghastly insensibility to our gravest -interests, in refusing to set up that compulsory international -tribunal. -</p> - -<p> -No writer will be expected to discuss patiently to-day the pitiful -sophistry with which, until yesterday, a few defended the retention of -the military institution. Germany resounded with, and England and -France and the United States echoed here and there, the pompous and -hollow claims of its Treitschkes and Moltkes. War was a splendid moral -discipline: an institution appointed by Providence for purging the -race of sloth and materialism, for restoring chivalry and brightening -the shield of honour and rebuking selfishness. War has grimly belied -its apologists and we need notice them no longer. It has betrayed one -of the greatest nations of modern times into horrors and outrages -which are a supreme and eternal mockery of their moral claims for it. -</p> - -<p> -Others more justly claimed that war develops the virility, the -endurance, the power of men. The lesson of history, they said, is on -the side of war: the great empires of the world became great by their -heroism and sacrifices on the field of battle. Here we must -distinguish carefully. It is obviously true that these empires became -big, powerful, and wealthy by war; and if any nation candidly -confesses that it relies on war to increase its territory, its power, -and its wealth, its argument is unanswerable. But there is now no -nation in the world that professes to maintain an army and a navy for -the purpose of aggression and expansion. Even Germany, which -undoubtedly did construct its massive armament for that purpose, had -not the audacity to admit it. Defence is the justifying title and, in -so far as it is sincere, it is a just title. If, as long as the -military system lasts, an army and a navy of a certain strength are -required, in the judgment of appointed experts, for the defence of a -country and its institutions, we pay our share willingly for the -maintenance of such an army and navy, and we respect our soldiers and -sailors. I do not for one moment advocate the disarmament of one -nation living amidst armed neighbours; and a partial disarmament, or -an insufficient armament, is the surest provocation of war. My point -is that, since the world has reached such a pitch of moral development -that each nation now professes to arm only against the possible -aggression of a neighbour, the time has come for them to agree upon -the infinitely less costly and more reliable way of settling their -possible quarrels as individuals do. Only one nation, Germany, seems -to be genuinely opposed to this, not so much from native malice of -character as from very serious domestic reasons for aggression: and a -perfect opportunity now arises for effectively impressing on Germany -the fact that she has come too late into the family of Great Powers -for filibustering. -</p> - -<p> -As to the development of physique and endurance and discipline, it is -too obvious that this could be attained by athletic contests which are -at present left to voluntary interest or to the unattractive -manœuvres of professional exploiters. For years I have followed -professional football with keen pleasure, and I was interested when, -at the outbreak of war, men cried that these footballers were the most -superb material for our recruiting agents. It was perfectly true. Any -State which is sincerely eager to develop the physique and endurance -of its citizens can do it by the use of devices which will provide -most enjoyable spectacles and national or international festivals -instead of periodic orgies of blood and tears. The defenders of war -must be hard pressed for argument when they plead this necessity. -There is, moreover, one supreme difference between war and athletics -as instruments of training. War destroys what it creates: athletics -keeps its men among our citizens and breeders. -</p> - -<p> -The truth is that the whole historical argument for war, which has had -an incalculable influence in the education of Germany, is a miserable -fallacy. The real lesson of history is that militarism has been a -malignant cancer, transmitted from one empire to another, and, by -destroying them, it has hundreds of times suspended the advance of -civilisation. It is in a sense a fallacy to claim that any nation -became great by war. The tribe which wins ascendancy over its -neighbours does so because it is already more powerful, more numerous, -or more fortunately situated. Then comes the period of expansion, -when, as we admit, greater power and wealth and territory are -undoubtedly won by the sword. This is the seductive phase of history, -leading astray men like Ruskin as well as men like Mommsen and -Niebuhr. Let us admit all its glories. Moral and humanitarian excesses -are just as mischievous as immoral excesses. As a result of this -successful war and expansion, the older empires were enabled to foster -art, to protect their growing culture, to civilise vast stretches of -the earth that might otherwise have lain uncivilised for ages. -</p> - -<p> -Most assuredly war has, in this sense, been a most valuable influence -in spreading civilisation over the earth. What modern historians -forget is that the conditions have totally changed. Your empire is no -longer surrounded by myriads of barbarians whom you must conquer -before you can civilise. Germany has been forced to colour its -aggression by the stupid pretence that it had a higher <i>Kultur</i> than -its neighbours, and that, in endeavouring to impose it on them, it was -carrying out the “law of history.” It is a pity that science and -history ever adopted the word “law.” What they mean, of course, is -only a summary of the way in which things uniformly occurred in -certain conditions. Now that the conditions are entirely changed, the -laws have no application. One might suggest that we still need armies -to conquer and civilise the outstanding barbaric peoples. We do not. -We need an international armed force to check their aggressions, but -there are other and better methods of civilising them. In any case, -this plea has no relation to the vast armies and navies and the bloody -wars we actually endure. -</p> - -<p> -But it is the next and final phase of militarism which the historical -apologists for war have so grossly overlooked: the phase when the best -stocks of the old race are extinguished on the battlefield or -enervated by the luxurious idleness which was bought by the spoils of -war. Is it not proverbial how the great families which had led the -invincible legions of Rome dwindled in five centuries into a sickly -cluster of parasites or wholly disappeared? Is it not notorious that -it was, in the first century of the present era, the healthier -provincial stocks which saved Rome from destruction, or postponed its -destruction? And do we not find, as time goes on, men from more and -more distant provinces, in the end men from the barbaric fringes of -the Empire, coming to lead its legions and support its falling eagles? -All through Roman history war presents itself to the mind of the -candid historian as a vampire living on the best blood of the people. -Only a continuous supply of fresh blood and stout frames from the -subject peoples keeps up the illusion of an “eternal Rome.” It is -only the shell that lasts. The people of Rome itself and of the -neighbouring plains, from which the old legionaries had come, were -soon exhausted. Italy in turn was exhausted and made desolate. Then -Gaul and Spain and Africa, and Thrace and Dacia and the more distant -provinces, were sucked bloodless and resourceless; and the great shell -of an empire fell with a crash under the blows of Goth and Vandal. It -is a clerical myth that Roman strength was sapped by vice. Its blood -was drunk by war. -</p> - -<p> -These things Niebuhr and Mommsen forgot when they proposed to Germany -the splendid example of Rome; and history will have its revenge on its -great interpreters by recording the close in tragedy of this new -imperialism which they inspired. Other historians boldly quoted -Greece—Alexander of Macedon—and the fallacy is even more piteous. -Athens assuredly did not become great by war. Its most brilliant -period opens after a crushing and devastating reverse, and its -achievements were entirely due to its statesmen, its artists, and its -thinkers. But from the moment when the shadow of the Macedonian empire -fell on it, a blight came swiftly over its culture. Its glory departed -for ever when it became part of a great military power. Greece, as a -whole, was impoverished and ruined by war. Sparta itself, one of the -most strenuous military powers that ever lived, is a classical proof -that war invigorates only to destroy. -</p> - -<p> -To whatever nation we turn, we learn the same lesson of history. Egypt -survived the strain, owing to the constant infusion of foreign blood, -for eight thousand years, but sank at last so exhausted that it seems -almost beyond the hope of reanimation. Assyria and Babylonia were -prepared for destruction by the same steady drain of their healthiest -blood. The Hittites, the Lydians, the Phœnicians, the Medes, the -Persians followed the same course. From the first founding of -civilisation in the valley of the Nile, ten thousand years ago, war -has brooded over its cities and cornfields, and has time after time -blighted its achievements and its hopes. It is as though some god were -jealous of the advance of man, and maintained on the earth this -corroding pest to eat into the life of each successive empire, and, by -destroying it, to interrupt the progress of the race. -</p> - -<p> -In the history of Europe since the fall of Rome we witness the same -human tragedy. I do not overlook the other evil influences, such as -fiscal disorder and industrial parasitism, which have contributed to -the fall of empires, but the share of war in these tragedies was -incalculable. The fate of early England, battling against invaders and -rent by internal quarrels for centuries, is typical. The greater -England of modern times, or the <i>real</i> greatness of modern England, -was built in periods of comparative peace by merchants and -manufacturers and scholars. Over the whole of Europe the vampire still -brooded, fastening on each young nation that advanced beyond its -fellows. The medieval republics of Italy were wrecked by war. Holland -and Portugal, once the most promising powers of Europe, were exhausted -by it. Not vice, not enervation, not a dwindling birth-rate,—which -are rather consequences than causes,—but the incessant exhaustion of -their resources on the seas and the battlefield condemned them to -decay. Italy fell back into the state of impotence which gave Austria -and the Papacy their ignoble opportunity. Once more the advance of -civilisation was checked by the jealous god of war. -</p> - -<p> -It is, of course, true that warfare produced fine types of men; but -for every Bayard there were ten thousand brutal soldiers, whose march -across Europe left a broad track of rape and ruin. It is true that the -naval or military successes of Venice and Genoa and Florence enabled -them to raise marble palaces and to foster the art of painters and the -research of scholars; but it is equally true that prosperity based on -such a foundation was generally doomed. The example of medieval Rome -shows that a military basis was not essential. The peoples from whom -the tribute had been wrung awaited their hour—the hour when the -vampire had sucked the great frame weak and bloodless—and then, by -the same law of might, they smote the oppressor. The historian who -reads the whole chronicle of man is saddened even in contemplating a -nation’s prosperity. Amidst the cries of joy and triumph and love he -seems to hear the cynical laughter of the war-god. -</p> - -<p> -I need not follow the devastation of war through the later history of -Europe. The Thirty Years War laid Germany desolate, and postponed its -cultural development for more than a century. Spain, Portugal, and -Holland, which had won empire by the sword, lost it to the sword. The -Ottoman Empire sank into weakness and shame. All this was due, in the -first place, to what Count von Moltke calls “the institution of -God”: the institution without which “the world would fall into -decay and lose itself in materialism.” Even while he spoke Germany -was prospering by peace as few nations had ever prospered before. -Could there possibly be a more perverse reading of the lesson of -history? Could there be a greater mockery conceived than to imagine -God smiling on this blood-reeking Europe, or to call this a spiritual -triumph over materialism? Is any man, with the present desolation of -Europe before him, tempted to place the soldier above the artist, the -scientist, or the engineer as an instrument of progress? Let us grant -militarism all that it has really achieved. It remains, in the mind of -the historian, the greatest curse that mankind has endured since the -primitive humans were first gathered into tribes and disputed each -other’s “spheres of influence.” -</p> - -<p> -Blind to this ghastly tragedy of history, we have maintained and -cherished militarism until it has brought on us in turn the greatest -catastrophe that a single year ever embraced. Probably our -grandchildren, probably many a child that gazes now with wide eyes on -our troops and banners, will look back on our civilisation with -amazement. They may smile at a drill-sergeant like Count von Moltke -telling illiterate rustics of the glorious moral qualities which war -develops in—the men who traversed Belgium! But we civilians will -honestly puzzle them. We had the history of the world unfolded before -us, and we saw this institution plainly emerging from barbarism and -leaving its bloody and defacing splashes on every page of the -chronicle. We traced the evolution of justice, and we saw that, as it -was a mighty gain to men when tribunals were set up to adjudicate on -the quarrels of individuals or clans, it would be a far mightier gain -to erect a tribunal for settling the quarrels of nations. Yet we took -this stupid burden from the shoulders of our fathers, and we made it -incalculably heavier for ourselves and our children. -</p> - -<p> -I need not set out the weight of the burden in figures. When I first -wrote this page I dilated on the seventy million sterling per year -which we English were compelled to spend on defence: I imagined it -expended on social betterment and human help—on a magnificent scheme -of education, for children and adults, and so on. Then I observed—two -years ago—with a shudder that at any moment a war might double our -National Debt and compel us to find a further £40,000,000 a year to -pay for our militarism. And here, within less than twelve months, we -have incurred this monstrous burden, yet we linger still on the very -fringe of the mighty battlefield we have to traverse. Think what the -future may be if we retain militarism. In the past one hundred years, -or a little more, war has cost Europe about £4,000,000,000. In one -year a modern war has cost Europe more than that sum, and may cost it -double. Add to this, if you can calculate it, the value of the -millions of the more robust workers who die on the field: the -appalling loss to productive industry: the portentous devastation of -property. I suppose that, soberly, the total cost of this war will be -something between ten and twenty thousand million sterling. What will -be the cost of the next war, which may come within ten years? And what -might we have done in Europe with ten thousand million sterling? -</p> - -<p> -I am not, it will be observed, relying on disputed speculations like -those of Mr. Norman Angell. I do not accept his characteristic theory; -but it need not now be discussed, as our experience rather suggests -that a modern war will prove so exhausting, economically, that there -will be no question of substantial indemnity for the victor. But we -must in any case add to this cost of war, for victor and vanquished -alike, that incalculable damage which is expressed in ruined homes, -ruined fortunes, and the pain of loss. This also is too vividly -present in our minds to need comment. These sacrifices have been borne -heroically. Those of us who have lost nothing can most sincerely -salute both the men who exposed their lives in a just cause and the -women who endured as women do. The soldier’s trade is an honourable -trade while the need for it lasts, and at such a time it calls for -respect and gratitude. But how stupid and brutal in the last degree is -the system that imposes these sacrifices, when we reflect that the -honour or the rights of any nation could have been vindicated without -the darkening of a single home or the loss of a single citizen. -</p> - -<p> -There, of course, we have the centre of gravity of the whole -discussion. <i>If</i> we can abolish and dispense with the military system, -our retention of it in the twentieth century is the most appalling -sham and anachronism of which we are guilty. I do not enlarge on the -cost of war. No one to-day can be insensible of it or suggest that any -but the most imperious needs would justify us in retaining it. I -assume also that, after the lamentable behaviour of Germany, none will -question that there will be wars as long as militarism lasts, and that -the cost and carnage will increase prodigiously. -</p> - -<p> -The supreme point for us to realise is the comparative ease with which -this greatest of reforms can be accomplished. We have no rival schools -of economists or moralists or philosophers darkening counsel here. We -do not await a genius to discover the path for us. A plain and -seriously indisputable ideal is put before us: arbitration. A court -for exercising it has already been established: the Hague Tribunal. -Let the majority of people in the more powerful nations of the earth -agree to submit every international difference to that or some other -tribunal, and we have made an end of militarism and war. -</p> - -<p> -If this seem a hasty or superficial view of a grave problem, reflect -on the difficulties which a cautious or conservative thinker might -allege. He would, I fancy, on sincere consideration, admit that the -chief and most serious difficulty is not a reluctance based on -specific reasons, but a general apathy due to want of reflection. I am -not for a moment underrating the magnitude of the effort that will be -required in overcoming this apathy, in creating the general will. In -this respect, indeed, the pacifist reform is peculiarly hampered. -Pessimistic people ask how we came to boast of moral progress in -modern times when this military evil has become greater than ever. -They do not reflect on the special conditions of the problem. In -attacking almost every other evil—industrial injustice, say, or cruel -sport, or a stupid penal code—we have to deal only with our own -nation. We can carry the reform within our own frontiers, whatever -other nations do. In the case of militarism we cannot. All the Great -Powers, at least, must advance simultaneously. We have not to educate -a nation, but a planet. Pacifists have at times given the -impression—generally a wrong impression—that they forgot this; that -they advocated disarmament or relaxation of armament in our own -nation, whether other nations disarmed or no. In this way, and because -many pacifists have weakly opposed or carped at England’s action in -this very grave crisis, they have done harm by making humanitarianism -seem unpractical, blindly sentimental, and dangerous. I need not -repeat that I have not the least sympathy with that sort of pacifism. -The reform must be international and thoroughly practical. -</p> - -<p> -But this large task of planting a definite conviction in the minds of -the majority in many nations does not conflict with what I said about -the essential clearness and simplicity of the reform. If you set out -to attack poverty or to reform marriage, you have first to settle very -serious controversies about the way to do it. There is no such -controversy here. There are, it is true, a few who still have in their -veins some of the blood of the medieval swashbuckler. They say that, -while a quarrel about territory might fitly be referred to a judge, an -outrage on our national honour must be expiated by blood. The idea is -purely barbaric. As if this river of human blood were not an -immeasurably greater outrage than the heated words of a nervous -diplomatist, or the jibes of a silly journalist, or the acts of an -excited crowd, or the guilt of a couple of assassins! As if an -international court could not devise some means of appeasing injured -honour as well as of restoring injured rights! It is dreadful -materialism, they say, to put honour in the scale with money. So men -said in the clubs of London a century ago in defence of the duel, and -we recognise in their pleas the lingering, more or less disguised, of -a barbaric sentiment. Most of us recognise that same feature in this -last apology for the duel of nations. If we can trust our individual -honour to a mediocre magistrate or judge, or a still worse jury, we -can certainly entrust our national honour to a group of the ablest and -most impartial lawyers of the world. It is sheer distrust of justice -to refuse it. -</p> - -<p> -Here again history is wholly on the side of reform. Which of the great -wars of the nineteenth century involved a point of honour that could -not, with entire decency, have been submitted to arbitration? Was -there such a point of honour in the Napoleonic wars? The -Prusso-Danish? The Prusso-Austrian? The Italian? The American Civil -War? The Franco-German? The Russo-Turkish? The South African? What -point was involved in any of them that could not have been settled -with far greater honour to the combatants and greater regard for -justice by an impartial tribunal? In most cases they were really wars -of aggression and expansion, like the war in which we are engaged. We -may at least ask the men who hold that medieval idea of war to -have—since they boast much of their courage—the elementary courage -to say so. -</p> - -<p> -There is no conceivable quarrel that cannot with perfect honour be -submitted to arbitration. And the ostensible ground of this colossal -struggle which is now exhausting Europe—the satisfaction due to -Austria for the assassination of the Archduke—was pre-eminently a -matter for a tribunal. The frivolity and insincerity with which these -grave issues are sometimes met are, to put it on the lowest level, -costly. Speaking in a London club some time ago, I urged this -substitution of arbitration for war. My opponent frivolously observed -that he was not sure that a court of great lawyers would be cheaper -than war, and there were some who quite seriously applauded. Yet -Europe had then actually expended about £2,000,000,000 in the -preliminary stages of its great war! -</p> - -<p> -Wherever there is a considerable and deliberate reluctance to -substitute arbitration for war, wherever these unsatisfactory pleas -for war are put forward, we find a hypocritical concealment of real -motives. If we would be practical we must candidly confront these -motives, and we shall find that the most persistent and most dangerous -of them is still the desire to gain territory. The spectacle of the -decay of the Ottoman Empire and the apparent helplessness of the -Balkan peoples had more to do with the militarism of European Powers -than they were willing to admit. That source of temptation is now -renewed, and most of the Powers have, or soon will have, all the -territory they can reasonably desire. The further distribution of -African territory could clearly be best controlled by an international -court. There remains one Power that will still feel the lust of -territory. Germany conspicuously thwarted in Europe the advance of the -pacifist reform because, as the whole world now sees, it had an -aggressive territorial ambition. We may assume that Austria will now -be cured of its lawless and costly designs, and that Germany will -remain the one unsated and discontented nation. But Europe will surely -have the elementary wisdom of refusing to maintain its terrible burden -on that account. It will pay us better to meet the real economic need -of Germany by a generous colonial deal, and then to use the power of -an international polity to destroy and prevent the revival of -militarism in that country. -</p> - -<p> -We should thus remove the last serious obstacle to the reform, and the -work might advance rapidly. The tribunal, as I said, exists, and has -had more experience than is generally realised. The Hague Conference -of 1907 established a Prize Court, with permanent salaried judges, and -an Arbitration Court. A large number of very grave quarrels have since -been adjusted by this tribunal, and, as Professor Schücking observes, -“more than a hundred contracts between States have been concluded in -which, on each occasion, two States made the Arbitration Court -obligatory.” But, largely owing to the opposition of Germany and the -general apathy, the Court remained optional, and the Powers maintained -their armies for the settlement of quarrels in the old barbaric -manner. The next and last step is for all the Powers to recognise the -Court as compulsory, and to furnish it with an executive (a small -international army and navy) for the enforcement of its decisions. Our -vast armies and navies then become superfluous and would be disbanded -simultaneously, leaving only a small force in each country for the -suppression of native aggression (with the consent of the Hague Court) -and for use by the Court itself to enforce its verdicts or suppress -illegal attempts to arm. -</p> - -<p> -There is nothing Utopian or academic about this reform. A body of -high-minded lawyers and statesmen have for years discussed the details -of the scheme, and are ready to launch it whenever the various -Governments are compelled by public opinion to adopt it. The immediate -task is to create this pressure of public opinion. We may hope that, -after our ghastly lesson in the price of the military method, we shall -no longer be rebuffed with vapid phrases like: “Do not force the -pace.” A business-man who talked nonsense of that kind would soon -find his level. We need to conduct our national and international life -on business-principles, to get rid as speedily as possible of a waste -and disorder which are an outrage on the intelligence of the race. I -look more confidently to business-men than to speech-making -politicians and sentimental moralists for the triumph of the reform. -Certain industries will, of course, be gravely dislocated, even -annihilated, by the change; and vast bodies of additional workers -will, in most countries, be thrown upon a crowded labour-market. From -the abstract economical point of view it is only a question of -transfer. Fifty millions which were spent on military industries will -now be used in enlarging other industries or creating new. In reality -there will be grave confusion; but that is due to the utterly -disorganised nature of our industrial world, which I discuss later. In -any case to allege this industrial difficulty as a serious reason -against disarmament is a very singular piece of folly. The cost and -trouble of adjusting this temporary dislocation would be infinitely -less than the cost and trouble of a war. -</p> - -<p> -We need, therefore, to persuade the public, which has borne its -military yoke and endured the occasional lash of war with the -placidity of a draught-ox—that is, candidly, how we shall appear in -the social history of the future—that it may escape the yoke and the -lash when it wills. Our Churches might make some atonement for a long -and lamentable neglect of their duty by organising a really spirited -collective campaign in this greatest of moral interests. The central -educative body should, however, be quite unsectarian. I take it that -an amalgamation of the various Peace Societies, strengthened by the -adhesion of our commercial and industrial leaders, would form this -central educative body. The present war would furnish it with a superb -text and an unanswerable argument. It ought, in the circumstances, to -capture each country in Europe more speedily than Cobden’s famous -league captured England. The press would begin to assist at a certain -stage of progress. Even the politicians would presently lend their -oratory; especially as their prestige, at least in this country, would -hardly survive a second strain such as this war has put on it. Every -agency ought to be enlisted in impressing upon the public that, -whatever other reforms may imply, here we ask no sacrifice; we -indicate a way in which the community may, when it wills, rid itself -of a stupendous burden and set free enormous resources for social -improvement. -</p> - -<p> -Reformers are widely, and with some reason, accused of being dreamy -and unpractical. Here, at least, it will be seen that it is rather the -public and the opponents of reform who are dreamy, romantic, and -unpractical: that the reform itself is a business proposition of the -most attractive and promising character. But let us be even more -practical. To forecast the future is an interesting intellectual -recreation; but to close one’s mind entirely against the -possibilities and dangers of the future is positive folly. Let us -glance at the future. -</p> - -<p> -I have not the faintest hope that the Allied Powers will, as they -ought to do, disarm Germany and Austria and then disarm themselves, -when the war is over. Then Germany will concentrate all its marvellous -power of organisation, dissimulation, and intrigue in a dream of -<i>revanche</i>. The appalling incompetence displayed by what we may call, -in the broadest sense, our Intelligence Department and our War Office -will return, when the temporary accession of business-ability has been -withdrawn from it. There will be no serious inquiry into our -scandalous indolence in the early period of the war, our complete -failure to forecast the conditions of war, and our heavy somnolence -during Germany’s feverish preparations, although the documents -published by the French Government show that, by 1913 at least, -sharp-sighted foreign representatives saw clearly that war was, to put -it moderately, highly probable. In point of fact, our authorities knew -that war was gravely imminent. I happen to know, from a little breach -of confidence, that our War Office secretly warned certain reservists -in June 1914 (even before the Serajevo murder) to be ready. The men -were ready, and have borne <i>their</i> share superbly; but our authorities -had to confess that, even after nine months’ experience of the war, -they were immeasurably behind Germany in the production of the two -vital necessaries of a modern war—machine-guns and high-explosive -shells. -</p> - -<p> -Our experts will return to this comfortable somnolence. There will be -no serious inquiry. Politicians and their advisers will escape in a -cloud of thrilling emotions and enthusiastic rhetoric. Persistent -questioners, who are rudely impatient of party-discipline, will be -snubbed and evaded. Any other questioners, not of the political world, -will be ignored. We shall return to British dignity and placidity. -Germany will work and intrigue as it never worked and intrigued -before. There will be grave domestic trouble in Russia and, as in the -case of Turkey, German representatives will think while British -representatives play. The preparations may occupy ten years or twenty -years, but they will proceed. The aim will be a war with Russia -neutral or friendly to Germany. If it occurs ... One has only to -imagine where we should be to-day if Germany had not made the error of -abandoning the Bismarckian tradition. -</p> - -<p> -Behind this is a further possibility. China is just as capable as -Japan of learning the use of thirteen-inch guns and maxims. Sir Hiram -Maxim, in fact, who knows both China and the gun, quite agrees with me -on that. And China has, behind that stoical and almost childlike -expression it presents to Europe, an acute memory that for thirty -years we have treated it with flagrant injustice. It may take decades -to undo the evil of ages of Manchu misgovernment and organise the -resources of the country, but the day will come when an alert and -powerful nation of 500,000,000 Orientals will press against its -frontiers. We may remember that the Mongol banners have before now -fluttered over Moscow and reached the Mediterranean. And the Mongols -are not the only awakening people. We may yet see an anti-European -combination from the Asiatic shore of the Pacific to the African shore -of the Atlantic. These are some of the possibilities we hand on to our -children if we do not in time abandon the military system. -</p> - -<p> -To that pass has it brought us. We writhe and groan under the terrible -burden it lays on us, and we shrink from contemplating the future; yet -we might cast off the burden and rid the future of peril when we will. -We disavow the buccaneering spirit, and protest that we arm only in -defence against each other; and one wonders whether to smile or weep -at the obtuseness which prevents us from adopting a simple and humane -means of defence instead of this exhausting barbarism. We -“humanise” war, yet cling needlessly to the whole inhuman -business. We are teaching the backward nations to arm,—we would -gladly supply them with tutors and arms at any time,—and may be thus -preparing a more colossal conflict than ever. Surely the man or woman -of the twenty-first century will find us an enigma! -</p> - -<p> -Let me close with a repetition of my protest against the -misconstruction to which such a book as this is always exposed. I -advocate no Utopian scheme, but one which some of the ablest lawyers, -statesmen, and business-men in Europe have discussed for years and -warmly endorsed. I have no wish to conceal technical difficulties -under sentimental phrases, but these men, to whom I refer, are -prepared to meet the difficulties. I regard the work of the soldier as -honourable and worthy, as long as we impose the military system on -each other; and at this particular juncture regret only that I am long -past the age of bearing arms. I plead, as long as the system lasts, -for unquestionable efficiency in national defence, whatever it cost. -But I say that, in this military system, we are enthroning the -hollowest and most ghastly sham that ever deluded humanity: that, when -we have the courage or wisdom to strip it of its tinselled robes, we -will shudder at sight of the gaunt frame of death which has ruled -civilisation for so many thousand years: that nothing is wanting but -the general will to dethrone this mockery of a god: and that, when we -have abolished militarism and war, we shall advance along the way of -social improvement with far lighter steps and vastly increased -resources. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch03"> -CHAPTER III.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">THE FOLLIES OF SHAM PATRIOTISM</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">When</span> warfare is abolished, and men no longer peep at their foreign -neighbours over hedges of bayonets, there will be a number of less -important international absurdities to remove. Some three hundred -years ago, we discovered that the earth was a globe. To-day we are -appreciating that this globe is the property of the human race, and -that the friendly co-operation of all branches of the race is -extremely desirable. National efforts and sacrifices are undone by -international waste and disorder. We begin to perceive this, and the -most sober of us must look forward to a time when the scattered and -antagonistic elements of the race will agree upon some graceful design -of a City of Man, and unite in constructing it. -</p> - -<p> -That familiar phrase, the Brotherhood of Men, sounds rather hollow in -the ears of many. I am avoiding pretty phrases and disputable creeds -and subtle philosophies—I am trying to keep in direct contact with -the realities of life—and therefore I do not use it. But the sincere -sentiment behind it, the feeling that we men and women do form one -large family in possession of an immense and infinitely fertile -estate, and that we will develop our property more advantageously for -each of us if we act as though we were brothers, can hardly be -challenged. The question of the exact expression of our relationship -to each other may be left to poets and scientists. -</p> - -<p> -Those lighter shams of patriotism, which I shall describe in this -chapter as hampering the march of the race, will be recognised even by -men who, with Carlyle or Nietzsche, refuse the title of brother to -some of their fellows. We ourselves smile at them sometimes, and at -the cheerfulness with which we endure the grave inconvenience they put -on us; and they will certainly provoke the laughter of the scholars -who will some day learnedly discuss the question whether we men and -women of the twentieth century were or were not civilised. They have, -it is true, a much more serious aspect; they are important auxiliaries -of the war-god. On the whole, however, they are shams that we ought to -kill with ridicule and bury with genial disdain. They are practices or -institutions which we have plainly inherited from the barbaric past, -when men were slaves of tradition, kingly or priestly, and dare hardly -use their own intelligence on their own habits. In this age of ours, -when we are at last becoming the masters, instead of the slaves, of -our traditions, they are regarded by large bodies of men and women in -every civilised country as stupid, anachronistic, and mischievous. -</p> - -<p> -In fact, there is here again no serious difference of opinion. One has -not to force one’s way through some controversial thicket before one -can discover the correct path of reform. The way lies perfectly clear -before us, and we can enter it at any time when we have the collective -will to do so. One might again describe the proposal, not as a -“reform”—since many people instinctively shrink from the word -reform—but as a business proposition of the simplest and most -profitable character. I speak of those false and antiquated freaks of -patriotism which keep different groups of human beings speaking -different languages, using different weights and measures, wrestling -with each other’s mysterious coinage, collecting each other’s -stamps, and stumbling against the many other irritating diversities -which make one part of the earth “foreign” to another. It may seem -to imply some lack of sense of proportion to pass from so grave a -subject as war to these matters, but a very little reflection will -show how closely they are connected. -</p> - -<p> -The first and most ludicrous of them is the stubbornness with which -each fragment of the race prides itself on having a language of its -own. This confusion of tongues has irritated and inconvenienced and -helped to exasperate against each other the various sections of the -human community for thousands of years, although we could suppress it -at will in half a generation. Millions of us have an acute and -constant experience of the absurdity of the system. In our schools, -where mind and body require the fullest possible attention during the -few years of training, we devote a large proportion of the time to -teaching children how the same idea may be expressed by half a dozen -different sounds. The higher the class of school, the more valuable -and skilled the teacher, the more time must be wasted in learning how -ancient Greeks and Romans, or how Germans and French and Italians, -have invented different sounds from ours for expressing the same -ideas. The slenderness of the protest one hears against this polyglot -system from educators themselves is amazing. They have, it is true, -begun to rebel in large numbers against the teaching of dead -languages, but comparatively few of them support the increasing demand -for that adoption of a common tongue which would do so much for the -advance of education. -</p> - -<p> -Those whose parents did not happen to be wealthy enough in their youth -to send them to schools which have the distinction of teaching -“languages” are hampered in a hundred ways. If they travel, they -must pay sycophantic waiters and couriers to give them a dim -understanding of the human world through which they pass. Even in -their own country they cannot order a dinner at any well-ordered -restaurant without first studying a lengthy vocabulary of superfluous -sounds, or without practising a dozen little hypocrisies to conceal -their ignorance. In large colonial hotels, where hardly a single -person who does not speak English is ever found, one receives a -“menu” with the usual intimidating array of French phrases. “You -ought to supply dictionaries with this sort of thing!” said an angry -young squatter, taking a seat beside me in the Grand Hotel at -Melbourne, to the waiter. If you are travelling for business, or even -transacting business at home, you must have your foreign -correspondents and agents; and with their aid you follow dimly the -very interesting advances and experiments that are being made in your -department abroad. Our Governments must pay more heavily for -diplomatic and consular service. Our books and magazines make a parade -of foreign phrases which have not yet become as familiar as English. -Our shopkeepers add twenty-five per cent. to the cost of our linen by -calling it “lingerie.” ... -</p> - -<p> -We are tormented in a hundred ways, yet we contemplate this absurd -muddle and waste with as resigned an air as if we still believed that -the Almighty had, in a fit of temper, created the confusion of tongues -at ancient Babel. So subtle and strong is the hold of custom on us -that we rarely even ask ourselves whether this is a wise or an -unalterable arrangement. We hear with indifference, if not with -amusement, of societies which propose to adopt one international -tongue in the place of this ridiculous confusion; we languidly picture -to ourselves little groups of long-haired faddists meeting in bleak -halls to attract our duller neighbours to the cultivation of one more -innocent enthusiasm. We have not time for these things. When a -sensible man has given adequate time to business and pleasure, he has, -he says, no hours to spare for these idealistic luxuries. Yet a -moment’s serious reflection would show us that the sole aim of these -“faddists” is to make life <i>less</i> crowded and laborious, to -lighten our business and add to our pleasure, to introduce -common-sense into a large part of our conduct. To such strange -contradictions and absurdities does this resolve to resist innovation -bring us. -</p> - -<p> -Most people are, perhaps,—if they ever give a thought to the -matter,—under the impression that it is a mountainous and -impracticable task to introduce such a reform into the life of the -world. It is, on the contrary, one of the simplest and most -practicable reforms to which men could set their hands. It is even -less controversial a measure than the abolition of war. There are few -prejudices of our time which have not attracted the ingenuity of some -faddist or other; but this is one of the few. More emphatically here -than in the case of war, all that we need is the will of the majority -to change our anachronistic practice. When one regards the entirely -uncontroversial nature of the reform and the immense economy it will -entail, it is hardly unreasonable to hope that this will of the -majority may soon be secured. -</p> - -<p> -I assume that, when we agree to direct our “Governments” to carry -out this elementary improvement of international life, they will -summon an international commission of philologists, educators, and -commercial men, whose business it will be to create a new language. -This step will not be taken until the voluntary movement for reform -has reached such proportions as to arouse the interest of politicians; -but in the end we rely on governmental action, as it is necessary to -reform schools and Parliaments. This international commission will, no -doubt, examine impartially such languages as Esperanto. Possibly these -existing international tongues will be found more complex than an -ideal language ought to be, and less attentive to the finer values of -speech. For the simple purpose of expression it is possible to create -a tongue far less complex than any in use in the civilised world -to-day: a tongue that could be learned in a few months even by the -untrained intelligence. It would proceed on the entirely opposite -principle to that of modern word-makers: the principle, for instance, -that changes “fireworks” into “pyrotechnics” (a piece of bad -Greek for good English), or “gardening” into “horticulture.” -The use of this debased Latin and Greek in science has a certain -advantage under our present polyglot system, as it is an approach -toward international agreement, but it is making more onerous than -ever the burden of our languages. We want a simple means of expression -and intercourse, with a power of expanding to meet the advance of -thought and discovery without needing to run to such lengths as -“diaminotrihydroxydodecanoic acid.” No existing national speech -would meet the purpose, least of all English; but it would be -advisable to have some regard to æsthetic interests in framing a new -language, and the old tongues would supply a good deal of material in -this regard. The success of the poet depends on qualities of words as -well as qualities of imagination, and we have no wish, like Plato, to -exclude poets from the ideal commonwealth. We should retain large -numbers of these short expressive words. -</p> - -<p> -Great numbers of people hesitate in face of this proposal because they -feel that it is a very large innovation, however simple and -indisputable it is in principle. They contemplate such things as a -nervous child gazes on the sea from the steps of a bathing machine. -Intellectually, a few such plunges would be of incalculable service to -our generation. One can understand people hesitating before some -disputed economic or political scheme, but to shrink from adopting -plain and large reforms such as this is not a sign of health. We need -to purge our sluggish imaginations of their prejudices, to brace our -intellectual power, to take pride in our creativeness. -</p> - -<p> -When the new international tongue is ready, a few years will suffice -to make it prevail over the older languages in the leading countries -which helped to set up the commission. It will become the one speech -of the school, the press, commerce, law, government, and, possibly, -the church. The travelling public will, as every Esperantist knows, at -once discover the advantage. The commercial world will find it a -splendid economy and a priceless boon to international trade. A man -will be able to travel from London to Tokyo with as little difficulty -as from Woolwich to Ealing; and it will be found that when the foreign -tongue, which so instinctively suggests to us the uniform of an enemy, -has disappeared, one of the worst obstacles to mutual good-feeling -will be removed. When the Englishman can talk to the Berliner with -perfect ease,—I assume that all beginnings of dialect would be -suppressed as mercilessly as weeds in a well-kept garden,—just as a -citizen of London now talks with a citizen of New York or Sydney, a -very dangerous chasm will be bridged. It is quite certain that the -calamitous attitude of modern Germany could not have proceeded to such -a dangerous pitch if the Imperialist and other literature which is -responsible for it had been intelligible to the whole of Europe. A few -students of particular aspects of German life were more or less -acquainted with it, and we refused to believe then. Now we discover, -to our amazement, that a neighbouring nation has for decades been -openly educated up to a pitch of unscrupulous aggression, and the -world has been threatened with an incalculable catastrophe. I am not -overlooking the real reasons for this development, but I say -confidently that it would have been impossible if a national -literature were not generally confined within the nation which -produces it. -</p> - -<p> -In the school the advantage would be very considerable. Our -overstrained and bespectacled children would be spared several hours a -day of their school-work or home-work. The whole ancient and -modern-language section of the curriculum would be suppressed, and -this suppression, with other reforms which I will describe later, -would enlarge the teacher’s opportunity of giving real education and -spare the pupil a great deal of devastating brain-fag. For the -education of older people the gain would be almost as great. A -Birmingham artisan could read the latest novel of d’Annunzio or -latest play of Hauptmann without the assistance of expert or inexpert -translators. All the older literature that is worth preserving would -be translated by specially qualified interpreters into the new tongue, -and the originals would then become the toys of leisured pedants. If, -as I suggested, a proper attention to word-values were secured in the -making of the new tongue, there is no reason why it should not express -poetical sentiments as gracefully and pleasantly as any existing -tongue. -</p> - -<p> -Is there any Utopian element in this scheme? Most people will probably -recognise that the only bit of utopianism in it is the expectation -that the majority of any nation can be induced to adopt it. That might -seem to justify one in using impatient language about the wisdom of -the majority of us, but it is no reflection on the scheme itself. The -reformer, however, is ill-advised in reflecting on the intelligence of -his fellows. Carlyle’s “twenty-seven millions, mostly fools,” -discovered in the end that all their follies, which he so vigorously -denounced in his <i>Latter-Day Pamphlets</i>, were more permanent and -accurate than his “eternal verities.” It is usually want of -leisure or immediate profit which alienates the public from schemes of -reform. Possibly a scheme which so plainly promises more leisure to us -and a very considerable profit may hope to win attention. The reform -of spelling I, of course, take as an integral part of the scheme. -</p> - -<p> -But this reform of international intercourse must take a more -comprehensive shape than the mere suppression of this confusing -plurality of tongues. It is just as foolish of us to maintain a -plurality of weights and measures, of coinage and postage-stamps, of -social and civic and juridical forms. Even if we confine our attention -to the leading civilised nations, we find in these respects a -confusion which outrages the elementary instincts of commercial life -and lays a monstrous burden of superfluous trouble on us all. -Travellers and business-men endure it year after year with the most -amazing patience. Men who would be fired to instant action if they -found a trace of such disorder in their domestic or commercial -concerns resign themselves to this colossal muddle of international -intercourse as calmly as if it were a providential and entirely sacred -arrangement. I remember once passing rather rapidly from Lucerne to -London, by way of Wiesbaden, Cologne, and Brussels: on another -occasion by way of Cologne and Amsterdam. The hours one has to spend -in calculating coinage (or lose the exchange-value), the worry -expended in struggling for stamps or dinners in the less familiar -tongues, the confusion of train-rules and street-usages and civic -regulations, reflect a system of chaotic disorder; to say nothing of -the “sizes” of boots or collars you need, the weight of tobacco or -fruit, and so on. -</p> - -<p> -All this is a portentous example of slavery to tradition, whether the -tradition be reasonable or no. We have not the slightest regard for -the historical development of this muddle and the peculiar folly of -retaining it in our generation. Our earlier ancestors measured their -woollens or their corn or their mead by the simple standards that are -apt to occur to primitive peoples. Even, however, where the same -standard occurred to, or commended itself to, different and remote -communities, its vagueness was fatal. “A thousand paces” (a -<i>mille</i>, as the Romans said) seemed a fair reckoning for long -distances, but the stretch varied, and we have Irish miles and German -miles and English miles and nautical miles. Our ounces and yards and -pints are as intelligent as most of the other things which the ancient -Briton invented, but, being British, they seem sacred to us. A hundred -years ago a far superior standard, the decimal system, was put before -us, but our fathers felt that it smacked of the French Revolution and -Napoleon and atheism. We smile at their prejudice, yet we have no -greater disposition to alter our unintelligent ways. The German would -be horrified at having to reckon his distances in kilometres. The -British lion, the French or German or Russian or American -eagle,—there is a marvellous love of that symbol of aspiration and -progress,—or the rising sun of Japan, must have its own system of -weights and measures and coins. Passing through a strip of Canada some -months ago I had, from lack of the local stamps, to entrust my post to -a kindly waitress; and was, of course, robbed. Of late years, -Australia has patriotically resolved to have its own coins, and has -fought parliamentary battles over its stamps. -</p> - -<p> -The often-imagined visitor from another planet would not be so much -surprised at this extraordinary and costly muddle of patriotic shams -as at our faculty for progress in commerce and industry amidst it all. -We seem to be quite blind to the larger applications of our modern -doctrine of efficiency. Regarded as an economic system, which it -really is, the international arrangement of our civilised world is -full of crudities which are more worthy of a Papuan pedlar. The -contrast between the methods of a large Chicago store or a British or -German engineering-business and the methods we retain in far larger -and more important concerns will one day be a subject of amazement. -The evil of which I am speaking eats into the very heart of an -industrial and commercial system which prides itself on its order, -economy, and efficiency. Yet this comprehensive muddle is contemplated -almost without protest by business-men. If it were merely the leisure -hours of travellers which were dissipated in this abstruse study of -foreign tongues and coins and customs, we might merely deplore -proverbial vagaries of taste. But the abuse is immeasurably greater -than this; the advantage we should gain by this scheme of unification -can scarcely be calculated. One would think that the reform was really -difficult to achieve, or lay under the frown of some imposing school -of theologians or moralists or economists! -</p> - -<p> -I omit from the list of perversities whatever is the subject of -serious economic controversy. Such things as national tariffs, for -instance. However arguable the question may be in England, even the -free-trader usually appreciates in such a country as Australia the -plea for a protective tariff. There is, at all events, a very serious -controversy on the general issue, and it would not be expedient to -include among plain reforms any scheme of universal free-trade or -universal protection. It is enough to point out that certain obvious, -stupid, and mischievous survivals of old conditions gravely hamper our -international intercourse. The prestige of our civilisation, as well -as a common-sense view of our interest, demand that we shall suppress -them. More disputable reforms may be considered afterwards. Our usual -method is, one fears, to discuss the more disputable reforms first. -</p> - -<p> -It is difficult to conceive any plea being put forward on behalf of -these irrational old customs, but a sufficiently ingenious and -superficial apologist might claim that patriotism bids us maintain -them. There is no doubt that the work of reform will have to proceed -over the bodies of a number of the pettier patriots. No one can -suppose that the task of unification will be accomplished without -friction. German professors and Bulgarian politicians will protest -against this pernicious cosmopolitan spirit, this horrible wish to -denationalise us, this tampering with the sources of national energy. -Ardent Irishmen and Welshmen will form very talkative associations for -the defence of “the grand old tongue.” Rival languages will be put -forward, and Esperanto will strain its hitherto respectable resources -in denouncing Volapük or the new official speech. French and English -and German savants will heatedly press the claims of ideal words in -their respective languages to be taken over, and pamphleteers will -discuss whether Herr Professor Doktor Schmidt did or did not -contribute more suggestions than Professor Smith. A higher criticism -of the new language will spread its pale growth like a parasitic -fungus. -</p> - -<p> -What is patriotism? In the sense in which the word is still widely, if -not generally, understood, it stands for a sentiment that belongs -essentially to a pre-rational age and cannot survive unchanged in a -rational age. This does not mean that a rational age has no place for -sentiments; it means that the sentiments must not affront reason. We -cannot at once pride ourselves on being paragons of common-sense, yet -slaves to a sentiment which common-sense must not examine too closely. -Loyalty to that larger national family to which we belong: cordial and -generous support of its interests: sacrifice, if need be, for its just -ambitions: pride in its worthy achievements, even in its worthier -superiorities—these are useful and intelligible sentiments, and it is -not unreasonable to make a flag the visible symbol of these just -interests and achievements. But a blind and undiscriminating devotion -to flag or king, a glorification of our national family above others -in the roystering fashion of the Middle Ages, a refusal to ask if the -demands of our rulers are just or if the interests we are pressed to -support are sound and equitable, an obstinate pride in a thing because -it is British or German, whether it be wise or no—these are -sentiments entirely at variance with the best spirit of our age. We -may recognise that even the crude old patriotism has contributed much -to the advance of civilisation. This gathering of men into rival -national groups has forced the pace, and has at times developed noble -qualities. But we must admit also that the same patriotism has -inspired hundreds of unjust and stupid wars, and has maintained on -their thrones kings and queens who ought to have been dismissed with -ignominy. -</p> - -<p> -The progress of civilisation does not entail the suppression, but the -refinement, of sentiment, as is very plainly seen in the supposed -implications of patriotism. When it is urged that these absurd -national diversities of speech and coinage must be sustained on the -ground of patriotism, we ask at once which sound element of patriotism -could demand such an anachronism? It is, surely, only the spurious -medieval sentiment that could dictate so utter an absurdity! Will the -interests of England be endangered because we remove a very serious -burden from its economic life and its educational activity? Shall we -be less prosperous, less happy, less respected, for correcting an -antiquated and foolish practice? These things, we may reflect, were -not stupid at the time when they were developed. The resolute patriot -may, if he wills, take pride in the relative ingenuity of the people -who invented them. Each separate national system was the outcome of -special conditions, and the slender commerce between the different -communities at the time they were developed did not require a rigorous -international standard. One bartered by the piece or the lump. But it -is sheer folly to ignore the modern transformation of international -life: to fancy that our unwillingness to exert ourselves, even for our -own advantage, may be ascribed to some lofty virtue. -</p> - -<p> -It need hardly be said that I am not cherishing a dream of spreading -at once over the entire planet a uniformity of language and coins and -standards. The leading civilised nations might, within a few years, -adopt such a scheme; and a certain number of the smaller and less -advanced nations, which aspire to membership of the civilised group, -would probably accept the reform speedily enough. On the other hand, -the permeation of the lower races with our ideas would be a slow and -difficult process: a part of that general task of civilising the whole -race which we have sooner or later to confront. This difficulty does -not at all affect the advantage we should gain by adopting a scheme of -unification within the family of civilised nations, and it cannot be -pleaded as a reason for postponement. But all the reforms I have -hitherto discussed will, when they have spread over the more highly -organised countries, find a temporary check in this chaotic jumble of -peoples on the fringe of civilisation, and it may be useful to discuss -the principles which ought to inform our attitude toward them. -</p> - -<p> -Our generation looks out upon these backward branches of the race, not -only with a finer sentiment and a stricter regard for principle than -any previous generation did, but with a very much clearer knowledge of -their meaning. We may, of course, be faithless to our principles in -cases: we may casuistically wrap a piece of frank buccaneering of the -old type in hypocritical humanitarian phrases. The general attitude -is, however, more enlightened, as these pieces of hypocrisy themselves -show. We may or may not hold the doctrine of universal brotherhood; at -least we understand the true relation of these more backward races to -ourselves, and we are in a much better position to determine our right -and our duties. We have advanced considerably since, little more than -half a century ago, a stern moralist like Carlyle could defend -black-slavery and denounce as “a gospel of dirt” the scientific -revelation which threw light and hope on inferior types of manhood. -</p> - -<p> -The chief difference is that we now see the true relation of the lower -races to the higher. It is false to say, as Carlyle did, that some -races were created with higher gifts than others, and were therefore -divinely appointed as the master-races. The notion is as absurd as the -old and profitable legend of the laying of a primitive curse on Ham -and his black descendants. Difference of geographical conditions is -the chief clue to the unequal development of the various branches of -the race. I have in various works developed this theme and will not -linger over it here. You have at the start the same human material and -capacities in all the scattered groups. But some have been for ages -isolated from the stimulating contact of races with a different or a -higher culture, and this is the essential condition of advance. Others -have, by sheer chance, been so situated that they enjoyed this -stimulation in an extraordinary degree. On this principle we can -understand the birth of civilisation in that fermenting mass of -peoples which settled between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf -ages ago, and the direction of the advancing stream of culture, partly -eastward to India and China, but mainly in the more favourable -north-western direction. -</p> - -<p> -It is, therefore, no difference of aboriginal outfit, but a difference -in the chances of migration and situation, which accounts for the -cultural diversity of races. Yet we must not at once infer that any -lower race can, on this account, be drawn from its isolation and -lifted to the higher level. There is reason to believe that a race -loses its educability if it remains unprogressive for too long a -period. The physiological reason may be that the skull closes firmly, -at a relatively early age, over the brain in a people in which -expansion of brain after puberty has not been encouraged. Take the -three “lower races” of Australasia. The Tasmanian was one of the -oldest and least cultured branches of the human family, and he died -out within a century after contact with the whites. The Maori of New -Zealand is the most recent and most advanced of the three aboriginal -races. With the Polynesian, he is closely related to the European or -Caucasic race, and is certainly educable. The Australian black comes -between the two in culture and in the period of his isolation. -Australian scientific men who have made the most sympathetic efforts -to uplift the black tell me that they have failed, and the race seems -to be doomed. -</p> - -<p> -These scientific principles have discredited the old legendary notions -about the lower races, but we must not as yet make dogmas of them. -Nothing but candid and careful experience will show which races are -educable and which ineducable. It is very probable that such peoples -as the wild Veddahs of Ceylon, the Aetas of the Philippines, the -Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego, and some of the Central African groups, -will prove ineducable. Other races which have been considered -“savage” are already proving educable, either as a body or in -large numbers of instances. Many peoples have not been tested at all. -We are only just at the fringe of this vast and interesting problem. -</p> - -<p> -In regard to the races which, after humane and thorough experiment, -prove entirely ineducable, the solution does not offer much -difficulty. Once their primitive habits are disturbed, and they begin -to live on a pension allotted them by the European nations which have -seized their territory, they gradually die out. A very good case may -be established by those writers who hold that races which cling -incurably to barbarism ought to be painlessly extirpated, or prevented -from multiplying. Such races as the Australian blacks are quite -familiar with a process of sterilisation which does not interfere with -their enjoyment of life. On the other hand, the life led by these -domesticated but ineducable savages is hardly worth preserving at all. -However, as they are disappearing, one need not press that point. The -claim of sane humanitarians, that we have no right to interfere with -their conditions and seize their territory, is quite unsound. The -human family has a right to see large fertile regions of the earth -developed. Who regrets to-day that the Amerinds were pensioned in -order to find room for Canada and the United States and Brazil and -Argentina? Who does not see the advantage of peopling Australia with a -fine and advancing civilisation of (eventually) twenty or thirty -million progressive whites instead of a few hundred thousand miserable -aboriginals? -</p> - -<p> -At the other end of the scale we have, as I said, peoples who are most -probably or certainly educable. At a hazard one might instance the -Thibetans and Siberian Mongolians, the Koreans, the Maoris and -Polynesians, the Lapps (of the same blood as the Finns), and a large -number of Asiatic and African peoples. We must keep in mind the high -civilisation reached by the Amerinds of Peru, whereas their modern -descendants, the Quichwas, seem so negligible. In Africa there is a -vast amount of experiment and classification to do, and already the -pure Bantu races are furnishing scores of men who are susceptible of a -university education. I know several of them who are as competent and -well-educated as the average English university man. -</p> - -<p> -Has the white race a duty (“the white man’s burden”) to attempt -to civilise the coloured races? I speak in general terms, of course. -It is sheer insolence to regard the Chinese or Burmese—one must not -mention the Japanese—as lower races. Now, speaking in the abstract, -as a matter of general moral principle, the white has no clear duty to -civilise the coloured races. The sentiment of brotherhood may inspire -a feeling of duty in some, but one cannot build firmly on that phrase. -It is, however, not an abstract ethical question. The white men have, -in point of fact, spread over the globe, and they are in a fair way to -occupy all the territory on which the coloured races (except the -Chinese and Japanese and Burmese) were settled. Only an attitude of -general unscrupulousness could ignore the obligation which this -seizure of territory implies. England and Germany have, for instance, -occupied the islands of the Pacific and made their inhabitants a -“subject race.” They have done this, not only with a gross lack of -discrimination between the Polynesian (who is certainly educable) and -the much lower Melanesian, but with a quite cynical idea of the -“civilising” process. The work has been left to sailors and -travellers, who have decimated the population by spirits and syphilis, -or to the crudities of Christian missionaries. The joy of native life -has been killed, and the enforcement of clothing (which the natives -naturally cast off in the cooler evening, when the sensitive European -was not able to see them) has led to an appalling amount of pneumonia -and phthisis. We have done much to turn a wonderfully happy and -healthy people into a gin-drinking swaddled caricature of a Bank -Holiday crowd. -</p> - -<p> -But the lists of our crimes in dealing with the lower races need not -be given here. If we white people are to go out among the more -backward coloured races, and to profess that we are assuming the -paternal function of administering their territory, we must act on -some principle. It is rather late in the history of the world to send -out civilising expeditions which consist of missionaries presenting -copies of the Sermon on the Mount, and soldiers and merchants who, in -flagrant contradiction to the Sermon on the Mount, exploit the natives -and appropriate their soil. There must be a serious attempt to educate -them, and then an elimination of the unfit. Africa will prove a -formidable region for this discriminating work. The Mohammedans -themselves have already proved that many of its peoples are capable of -culture. -</p> - -<p> -We have a special problem in our treatment of races which, like the -Hindus and Egyptians, have already been drawn into the white system. -Let us be quite candid with ourselves in this matter. We appropriated -their territory for our advantage, not theirs, and our professed -modern sentiments are compelling us to say that we are not in -possession of their territory in their interest. We protect the Hindu -from native despots, the Egyptian from a cruel Mahdi or Pacha, the -retired official tells you. However, I do not propose that we should -investigate the title-deeds of all our existing empires as regards -their oversea possessions; nor do I in the least advocate the -dismemberment of such large unities as the British Empire. But the -principle on which some would stake our existence in India or Egypt, -the maxim that “What we have we hold,”—which is often illustrated -by a picture of a particularly stupid-looking bull-dog guarding the -British flag,—is the first principle of the pickpocket and the -burglar. Modern sentiment has to grant colonial empires a sort of -“Bula de Composicion,” such as the Spanish Church, for a -consideration, grants to pickpockets. The best compromise is that the -peoples which are to-day linked in empires should remain linked; not -as dominant and subject peoples, but as sister-nations working out the -destiny of the race according to the highest standards. This implies -that, as they assimilate Western culture (as the Hindus are quite -rapidly doing), they shall be more and more entrusted with the -administration of their own countries. The very different situation of -colonies need not be discussed. When Australia and Canada find, if -they ever do find, that it is to their interest to set up complete -independence, they will not cut the cable: they will cast it off as -calmly and confidently as they now cast off the cable of an Orient -liner on the quays at Sydney. -</p> - -<p> -Along these lines we may forecast the future, and very slow, drafting -of the more backward peoples into the homogeneous family of the more -civilised races. The unification of languages, coinage, etc., will be -gradually extended to them. But it is not my purpose in this work to -contemplate remote tasks and contingencies. A great and practicable -reform lies at our doors. The overwhelming majority of the race are -already incorporated in civilised nations, and the work of -organisation amongst these is urgent and comparatively easy. I am not -advocating a fantastic and lofty scheme for which one needs to be -prepared by the acceptance of advanced humanitarian sentiments. What -I am pleading for is the application to international life of our -treasured maxims of common-sense and efficiency. Those simple and -indisputable maxims condemn in the most stringent terms the patriotic -shams which we suffer to perplex and burden our life. Let us run the -planet on recognised business-principles. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch04"> -CHAPTER IV.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">POLITICAL SHAMS</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">The</span> reforms I have so far advocated have one peculiar -characteristic. They are urgent, easy to grasp, indisputable in -principle, and enormously advantageous; but they need international -co-operation, and we are only just beginning to form those friendly -international contacts which may lead to agreement. Hence it is that, -although very contentious reforms have already been realised, these -linger, as we say, outside the range of practical politics. But this -very phrase reminds us at once of another fundamental irregularity of -our life. The man who thinks a proposal dismissed because it is not -within the range of practical politics illustrates admirably the -indolence of mind which I am assailing. If a useful and economical -device were put before him in his business-capacity, and he were told -that his business had no room for it, he would at once ask what was -wrong with the business. I am contending all through for the -application of this progressive spirit to larger concerns than stores -or workshops. If our political system, to which we entrust these large -concerns, absolutely ignores some of our finest chances of profit, -there is something wrong with the system. Our servants are not doing -what they are paid to do. -</p> - -<p> -As I have already briefly contended, our recent experience furnishes a -very ghastly confirmation of this suspicion. The British Empire will -survive the dangers that beset it, though it will be deeply impaired -economically, for two fundamental reasons: the Allies have double the -population of the Central European Powers, and they have, including in -this respect the United States, far larger ultimate resources in -material and money. The fact that we do eventually muddle through -will, one fears, content the majority of our people, but the -thoughtful patriot will ask two questions. How many hundred millions -has our slowness in mobilising our resources cost us, by protracting -the war? And what is likely to be the fate of the British Empire if, -with a similar slackness, it has at some later date to meet a -numerically equal and far more alert enemy? -</p> - -<p> -Let me briefly recount the facts which show that our national business -has been grossly mismanaged. Can any person look back on all the facts -which are now public property and say that our soldiers and statesmen -were innocent in not perceiving the grave possibility of war with -Germany at any time in the last three years? That, however, will -scarcely be said: the readiness of our fleet is a sufficient reply. We -know further that the general character of the war was foreseen. -England was to help France and Belgium, on French or Belgian soil. -England’s co-operation on land was, as events have shown, vitally -necessary. Yet the unpreparedness of Britain for a great continental -campaign was entirely scandalous. No doubt there would have been a -risk in openly enlarging the army or creating great stores of -material. Germany would, in its unamiable way, have asked questions. -Tender-hearted Members of Parliament would have denounced our -provocative proceedings. But a preparation of plans, a census of our -resources, a scheme for the immediate enlistment of the -business-ability of the country and the full use of all our industrial -machinery—these and a dozen other most important measures could have -been taken in this country as safely and secretly as they were in -Germany. Not only were they not taken, but the military preparations -were actually relaxed. It has transpired, and is not disputed, that -our great Arsenal was only partially occupied; and Mr. A. Chamberlain -has publicly stated that Kynochs had for the year 1914—the expected -year of war—a Government order two-thirds less than they are capable -of executing in a week, and do now execute in a week. -</p> - -<p> -The second fact is the remarkable failure to forecast the conditions -of the war. If it be urged that a layman cannot judge how far such a -failure is culpable, the answer is prompt: the German authorities, who -had had no more experience of war than we, did forecast the -conditions. Their minute and energetic elaboration of the whole scheme -of the war contrasts extraordinarily with the sluggish and -conventional ease of our authorities. -</p> - -<p> -The third and gravest fact is our appalling and costly slowness in -mobilising our resources when the war began. Six months after the -outbreak of war I went over a very large engineering shop in the -north. Out of hundreds of men only a score or two were engaged on -war-material: and one of the two objects on which this mere handful of -men were engaged has proved to be wholly valueless. At that time, and -for months afterwards, the workers of Britain were encouraged in their -easy ways, and the bulk of the manufacturers were encouraged to go on -with their usual business, by official assurances that no greater -effort was needed. When our disgusted soldiers sent us a message that, -not “the weather,” but a scandalous shortage of ammunition and -machine-guns kept them back, the Prime Minister, quoting the -“highest available authority,” publicly declared this to be -untrue. We were asked rather to admire the way in which we had -dispatched the greatest expeditionary force known in history: as if -the enormous progress of modern times did not make this superiority a -matter of course. When criticism increased, we cried for the gag and -the public prosecutor, and we garlanded the portraits of the very men -who had disgraced us; and we agreed to the retention or promotion of -incompetent men, on obvious party-grounds. -</p> - -<p> -Happily one minister had the grit and patriotism to call to his aid a -group of business-men, and the facts could no longer be concealed. Mr. -Lloyd George admitted that since the beginning of the war, we had -increased a thousandfold our production of munitions, yet were still -far behind the Germans and far short of our needs; and at last, eleven -months after the outbreak of war, we began to organise, or at least to -ascertain, our resources. Again we loudly congratulated ourselves on -our energy. We cried shame on all critics and pessimists and people -who wanted more. We fancied ourselves in the character of Atlas, -taking the whole burden on our massive shoulders, to spare our weaker -Allies. But the sinister light which this late increase of output -threw on the first six months, or more, of indolent incompetence was -quite disregarded. We genially overlooked the fact that the delay of -our advance was costing us nearly a hundred millions a month. We -allowed less prominent affairs to be conducted with the same indolent -insufficiency. The most absurdly inadequate measures were taken to -control the prices of food and coal, and scarcely a thought was given -to the tremendous economic problem which will confront us when the war -is over, or to the means of recouping ourselves by a systematic -promotion of our oversea-trade. -</p> - -<p> -In a word, the magnificent organisation and ordered national devotion -of the German people make the conduct of England during the first year -of the war seem clumsy, lazy, and full of danger for the future. For -this the chief blame quite obviously falls on our statesmen. English -soldiers have at least been second to none in the field: English -artisans have, since the need was acknowledged, worked magnificently. -It is the directing brain that was sluggish and incompetent. The -magnitude of the sudden task does not excuse our rulers, nor does the -very large service that was actually done—which I do not for a moment -overlook—lessen the scandal. If a political machine does not know how -to enlarge itself in less than twelve months to meet a new and very -urgent task, especially a task that it ought to have foreseen, it is -unfit to control our national destiny. Our governmental system has -proved itself most dangerously and mischievously unfit to meet such a -national emergency, and this catastrophic experience may encourage the -reader to examine with patience the criticisms which I propose to pass -on it. -</p> - -<p> -Here again we submit to the tyranny of a largely obsolete tradition. -When the story of the development of human institutions can be written -with a detachment of which we are yet incapable, one of the strangest -pages will be that which tells of the evolution of Church and State. -From the early days when some exceptionally powerful warrior is raised -on his shield and saluted as chief or king, and when some weird -individual earns the repute of being able to control or propitiate the -mighty powers of the environing world, government and religion -steadily advance to a commanding position in the life of the people. -The two men of power, the king and the priest, must have -establishments in accord with their value to the tribe, and the palace -and the temple rise in spacious dignity above the mean cluster of -huts. Time after time the race turns to examine the tradition which -has been so deeply impressed on it, and kings and gods are cast from -their thrones; but new dynasties always arise. Of Rome, no less than -of Thebes or Nineveh, it is the monuments of kings and gods that -survive. Only a few centuries ago the European city consisted mainly -of two institutions: the palace and the cathedral. The bulk of the -citizens huddled in squalid fever-stricken houses beyond the fringe of -the estates of their secular and priestly rulers. -</p> - -<p> -The modern age, with its inconvenient questions and its bold speech, -arrives. Commerce develops, and the palace and cathedral disappear, in -the forest of soaring buildings. When the roofs of the new commerce -and the new commoner rise to a level with the roof of the palace or -the cathedral, when men are no longer overshadowed by the old powers, -the imagination is released. The divine right of kings goes in a fury -of revolutionary flame: kings must henceforth rule by human right and -answer at a human tribunal, which is more exacting and alert than the -old tribunal. Yet the power of the dead tradition is amazing. In -England men still bow reverently when the king addresses them as “my -subjects” and talks of “my empire”: still crown every -entertainment, spiritual or gastronomic, with fervent aspirations -which would lead an ill-informed spectator to imagine that they -regarded the king’s health as mystically connected with the health -of the nation: still describe bishops and the heads of families which -have been sufficiently long idle and wealthy as their “lords.” -</p> - -<p> -These archæological survivals are, no doubt, innocuous, if -irritating. The more serious feature is that they help to make so many -people insensible of the miserable compromises we endure in our -reorganised State. They are part of that superabundant ash which -clogs and dulls the fire of the nation’s life. The nineteenth -century, rightly and inevitably, adopted a democratic scheme of public -administration. It was seen that, if the king were not so close a -friend of the Almighty as had been supposed, there was no visible -reason why the destinies of the nation should be entrusted to his -judgment: which was, as a rule, not humanly impressive. Luckily, -certain nations had won the right to do a good deal of talking before -the king came to a decision, or the right to hold Parliaments, and -Europe generally adopted this model. The Parliament House now towered -upward in the city, and it did the real business of directing the -nation’s affairs. The king became a kind of grand seal for the -measures enacted by Parliament. Some nations, the number of which is -increasing, regarded the seal as a costly and avoidable luxury, and -abolished it: some kept the king, with all his stately language and -pretty robes and sparkling jewellery, and abolished the “lords”: -some kept the king and the lords, but deprived them of real power. The -English nation, which is famous for its common-sense, its audacity, -and its ability, belongs to the last group. It invented that -remarkable phrase, “self-government”: which ingeniously preserves -the fiction that someone has a right to govern other people, yet -conciliates the modern spirit by intimating that the people really -govern their governors. -</p> - -<p> -Into the extraordinary confusion of forms and formulæ which has -resulted from this compromise it would be waste of time to enter. Does -it really matter that we allow our king to put on our coins a -flattering portrait of himself, with an intimation that he rules as -“by the grace of God”? He is quite conscious that he rules us—if -his melodramatic relation to us may be called ruling—on the -understanding that he never contradicts us. We are not now knocked on -the head, except by an intoxicated patriot, if we refuse to stand -while our neighbours chant their insincere incantation about his -health: we go, not to the Tower, but to the ordinary law-court, if we -mention his personal frailties; and the portentous seriousness with -which he takes his robes and his formulæ injures none, and amuses -many. No doubt, slovenly mental habits are always to be deplored, yet -these things are not in themselves important enough to be included in -a list of serious reforms. What we do need to examine critically is -this scheme of self-government by which we now manage our national -affairs: very badly, it appears. -</p> - -<p> -This political machinery is divided into two sections: municipal -government and national government. The former, from which every -element of “government” except the name has departed, need not be -considered at length. It consists of groups of citizens who are -understood to excel in public spirit and self-sacrifice, so that they -devote a large part of their time to the unpaid service of their -fellow-citizens. Every few years a man, of whom you had probably never -heard before, calls to implore you, with a quite painful humility and -courtesy, to allow him to discharge this self-denying function. The -next day another man, of whom also you had never heard before, calls -to inform you, in discreet language, that his rival is a spendthrift, -a rogue, or a fool; and that <i>he</i> is the man to represent you with due -regard to economy and with absolute disinterestedness. You probably -refrain from voting for either, since you have not the abundant -leisure of a libel-court. Your streets will somehow get paved, and -your children schooled, and you will pay the bill. But you may -discover after a time that the air is thick with charges of -“jobbery,” or that some local councillor has been promoted to the -higher and more lucrative political world on the ground of “many -years’ experience of local administration.” -</p> - -<p> -If you happen to live in the Metropolis, where the intelligence of the -nation is clotted, so to say, you find municipal life even more -complex than this. The eager rivals who solicit the honour of doing -your work for nothing are divided into bitterly hostile schools. Each -school spends hundreds of thousands of pounds in a periodical effort -to convince you that the other school is going to swindle you. Each -plasters the wall with repulsive typical portraits of its exponents, -and you see yourself depicted as a weak and amiable, but small-witted, -figure (or, perhaps, as a burly and very stupid-looking farmer), whose -pockets are being picked. Each produces a most exact statistical proof -that its opponents have actually picked your pockets, and that the -“reds” or “blues” are the only people with a really -disinterested desire to spend some hours every day in the gratuitous -discharge of public duties. They spend great sums of money every few -years for the purpose of securing this thankless burden and facing the -vituperation of their opponents. You seek illumination in the press, -and you find, in rival journals, a mass of contradictory statements -and mutual accusations of lying. However, the system is thoroughly -British in its encouragement of individual action and public spirit, -and you overtook all the direct and indirect corruption it fosters. -</p> - -<p> -What is a man to do? One can at least search very rigorously the -credentials and the public action of the man who “solicits your -vote,” and encourage the appearance of really independent and -fine-spirited men and women. I have, naturally, described the broad -features and general abuses of the system, but there are, of course, -large numbers of men in it who are sincerely disinterested. In the -main, however, municipal politics is tainted and complicated by the -party-system of the large political world, and to this we may turn. -</p> - -<p> -That section of the political machine which controls national affairs -is obviously of the first importance. On its working rests the grave -issue of peace or war; to it is entrusted, in the last resort, the -great task of educating the nation; and through it alone can we secure -any of those numerous reforms which are to undo the tyranny of shams -and abolish so much avoidable misery and confusion. One ought -therefore to be gratified to see how large a place politics occupies -in the public mind, which is otherwise so little inclined to serious -matters, and in the public press, which so faithfully mirrors the -thought of the nation: to see how the prominent or eloquent politician -surpasses in public esteem the greatest artist or scientist, and even -rivals in popularity the prettiest actress of the hour: to see that -four-fifths of our public honours are reserved for politicians and -statesmen, and for those less gifted but more wealthy men who give -them practical support. Unhappily, when one looks closely into this -apotheosis of politics, one finds that its merit is merely -superficial: that a very large proportion of the more thoughtful -people in every civilised community look on politics with disdain, and -that some of the more independent of our politicians confess that one -must almost lay aside one’s honesty and ideals on entering the -political world. -</p> - -<p> -A series of grave struggles and threats of civil war in the first half -of the nineteenth century inaugurated the present political phase in -Europe. It transpired after Waterloo that the English parliamentary -system, in which our statesmen took such pride, was a hollow and -corrupt sham. A comparatively few wealthy landowners controlled the -nation, and bought votes for their nominees. After some years of -agitation the working men of the great manufacturing centres formed -armies and threatened to force the doors of Westminster at the point -of the pike. This elicited a system of restricted, but real, popular -representation. Later enlargements of the franchise improved the -system, and to-day some six or seven million adult males elect our -legislators. Until recently this scheme was largely frustrated by the -power of a non-elected House to suppress any measure which did not -please a privileged minority, but this is now materially modified. Six -million free and adult representatives of the nation appoint and -control the men who make our laws, and direct the king how to act. -</p> - -<p> -But in practice this admirable theory becomes a mockery and an -illusion. It may be taken as a Euclidean postulate that out of six -million people of any civilised nation four or five millions will -be—shall we say?—somnolent: not from want of brain, but from want of -constant exercise of it. A very earnest idealist of the last century, -Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, proposed that, for the great efficiency of -our political machinery, every elector should, before he received a -vote, be compelled to pass an examination in political economy and -constitutional history. Since few Members of Parliament, to say -nothing of voters, would have passed the examination, the proposal was -rejected, and the education of the voter was left to the interested -political parties and to the press which supported them, or was -supported by them. The result was that two rival organisations, -roughly corresponding to the two attitudes of the modern mind toward -new ideas (progressive and conservative), gradually increased in -wealth and power until they were able to control the electorate and -exclude from representation every finer shade of political thought. -The machinery by which this is done does not leap to the eyes, as the -French say, and the average elector proudly contrasts our political -system with that of most other nations. -</p> - -<p> -Candidly, we may take some pride in the contrast. The struggles and -sacrifices of our fathers have won for us a system which is far -superior to that which has hitherto prevailed in Russia, to the -despotic medievalism of Prussia, to the grave insincerity of Spanish -political life, to the confusion and occasional corruption of French -or Italian politics, to the remarkable activity which precedes a -presidential election in the United States. Our political life is -relatively free from large corruption. I happened to be in New Zealand -when the “Marconi Scandal” was agitating England, and I remember -politicians of that progressive little land smiling at the word -“scandal” and hinting that they were more adventurous. Some of our -discontent is, no doubt, due to women writers who magnify the evil in -order to persuade us to enlist their refining influence. I do not, in -fact, think that Mr. Belloc and Mr. Cecil Chesterton have proved some -of the graver charges which they brought in their indictment of our -“servile State.” It will need something more than a list of -matrimonial connections to persuade us that Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. -Winston Churchill were in the habit of meeting, amiably and -clandestinely, Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. F. E. Smith for the collusive -arrangement of our laws. -</p> - -<p> -Yet there is enough in the familiar criticisms of our political -machinery to justify one in saying that the political sham is, even -now, intolerable. What, candidly, is the procedure? A general election -is announced, and two men call, or send agents, to solicit the honour -of representing you in Parliament. In the district in which I write at -the moment one candidate is a wealthy and muddle-headed Liberal: the -other is a wealthy and (politically) equally muddle-headed -Conservative. Neither of them has the remotest idea of representing my -national wishes,—they would blush to be suspected of it,—and neither -has ever spoken in Parliament; so I have never yet voted. -</p> - -<p> -But I am an eccentric man. Let us take a normal case. You notice, as a -rule, that during the few years before the election a wealthy man has -been openly suffered, or directed from his party-headquarters, to -“nurse” the constituency. Hundreds will cast votes for him solely -because they fear a withdrawal of his subscriptions to their chapels -and football clubs, and of his open-handed philanthropy. As the -election approaches, another candidate appears. He also is, as a rule, -a wealthy man, and he spends between one and two thousand pounds in -disturbing the judgment and inflaming the emotions of the voters. -Pictorial posters, which might have adorned the walls of some Pyrenean -cavern in the Old Stone Age, are massed near the doors of some dark -“committee room” or spread over the town. The brain struggles -feebly with the contradictory statements of orators and journals. And -on the day of the election the two wealthy rivals for the honour of -printing M.P. on their cards, and the duty of voting as they are -directed by their superiors, flood the district, although it has an -excellent tram-service, with expensive cars and carriages, to take the -tired working man to the poll. -</p> - -<p> -Possibly one of the candidates is not a wealthy man, and you begin to -speculate on the source of his thousand pounds, or even three hundred -pounds. Very few voters do inquire, of course; most of them would be -surprised to know how much a man spends in soliciting the honour of -representing them—he has usually a great contempt for them—in -Parliament. The more inquisitive voter, however, would discover that -the poorer candidate is in a special sense the representative of a -particular party, and he would touch the fringe of a peculiar and -ingenious system. I happened one day to mention to a friend certain -advanced opinions of a Member of Parliament. “That,” he said -grimly, “will interest my father-in-law; he finances Mr. ——.” -Through the party-organisation this wealthy and highly respectable -manufacturer paid the election expenses and part of the -income—Members of Parliament had not then a salary—of candidates or -Members in various remote towns. The manufacturer, or the various -manufacturers who do this sort of thing, will eventually be knighted -or baronetted; their sons will have a chance of a secretaryship, or -even of Cabinet rank. The secretly subsidised Member will go to -Westminster, an automatic voter. In fact, since a candidate must -generally have the sanction of the central organisation of one or -other party before he can venture to solicit votes, even wealth does -not usually relieve him of the party-tyranny. -</p> - -<p> -What, then, is the party? It is not so much a creed as a wealthy and -powerful organisation. Once it was a group of men who happened to have -the same ideas. By a natural evolution of organisation—one sees the -same thing in the evolution of Churches—it has become rather a -machine for impressing those ideas on men. In a sense, it is an -oligarchy. We must remember such facts as the dismissal of Mr. -Balfour, and the powerlessness of Mr. Asquith to get rid of a certain -Minister whom he disliked. The power of the front-benchers is not -absolute. But on the whole the party is an aristocracy of wealthy men, -titled men, and able men, which rules the country for a term of years. -Its leading agents are the Ministers and Whips: the body of the party -is an association for carrying out its will, and for adding the -attractions of parochial entertainment and cheap club-life to the more -austere cult of ideas. Its revenue is, to a great extent, secret; but -the annual lists of honours reveal very plainly that it conducts an -unblushing traffic in such things. The reasons allied in the published -list are often too ludicrous for words. Privately one can often -ascertain the exact price. -</p> - -<p> -With this wealth the party-aristocracy controls the electoral campaign -and the elected Members. It has, further, at its disposal a large -number of highly paid positions, or functions which lead to highly -paid positions, or profitable little occasional jobs, or political -pensions, or a Civil List (which is grossly abused), and so on. These -it dangles before the eyes of impecunious or ambitious critics. Here -are two facts within my slender personal knowledge of these matters. A -very influential Socialist (my informant) was invited to a small -dinner of the party-aristocrats and diplomatically informed that he -might be useful in office: another drastic critic was assured by a -Cabinet Minister, through a mutual friend (my informant), that nothing -would be done for him until he ceased to criticise. -</p> - -<p> -The system is, on both sides of the House, corrupt, demoralising, and -intensely prejudicial to the interests of the country. We found its -danger during the South African War, and we perceive it far more -plainly to-day. What ought to be the brightest intellectual fire in -the land is sluggish, choked with ash, served often with inferior -material. The permanent departments of State which depend on it are -correspondingly sluggish. In an emergency it—after a humiliating -trial of its own ability—turns to business-men. Its whole tradition -and procedure are abominable. Men who are poor and independent may -bruise their shins on the doors in vain. Men of no ability are -promoted, even to peerages and the Cabinet, because their fathers -contributed much to the party’s purse or prestige, and they -themselves will at least be loyal. Men who raise critical voices in -the House are snubbed and suppressed: men who criticise outside are -safely ignored. The ablest and the most sincere men in the party—men -like Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Lloyd George—acquiesce in all this. -</p> - -<p> -The electoral system and the procedure of the House of Commons are -designed to protect this monstrous scheme. The large fee which is -exacted of candidates and the very large sums which wealthy men are -allowed to spend on elections intimidate able and independent, but -impecunious, men. The election is spread over a week or two in order -to give wealthy men, who may be relied upon to support the -constitutional parties, an opportunity of voting in several -constituencies, and in order that Ministers may give more aid to their -weaker supporters. For the polling-day Saturday is avoided as much as -possible, because on that day a larger percentage of the workers would -vote, and they are apt to vote against the constitutional parties. -Cars and carriages are permitted because the candidates of the workers -will easily be surpassed in this well-known advantage by candidates of -the great parties. Minorities are hopelessly excluded from -representation, such as they would have under a system of proportional -representation, because they would send to the House a number of -independent Members who would disturb all the calculations of the Whip -and all the tricks of party-government. Under a system of proportional -representation it would be quite easy for some scores of able and -earnest men to secure election at very small cost, by merely -circulating declarations of their views; but this, or a grave increase -of the Labour Members, would wreck the party-system, and therefore the -most democratic of our orthodox politicians maintain all the abuses -and injustices of our system. -</p> - -<p> -The division of constituencies is further designed to protect this -iniquitous and corrupt scheme. Universities, the City of London, and -boroughs like Durham, Bury St. Edmunds, and Montgomery—each of which -has a population of less than 17,000 souls—have an equal right to one -unit of representation in Parliament with Wandsworth, the Romford -division of Essex, or the Harrow division of Middlesex, each of which -has more than a quarter of a million inhabitants. Eighty-three -constituencies, most of them having a large proportion of the more -intelligent workers, have a population of more than 100,000 each: -forty-four constituencies have a population of less than 40,000 each. -In other words, half the people of England and Wales elect 167 Members -of Parliament: the other, and notoriously less intelligent half, elect -323 Members of Parliament. -</p> - -<p> -From Gladstone downwards even our most “democratic” statesmen have -acquiesced in these enormities of our electoral system; and they have -meantime expended much eloquence on the injustice of the Prussian -system, and have expressed ardent hopes for the emancipation of the -people of Italy, or Bulgaria, or Persia, or some other remote land. -Yet these features of our electoral scheme are retained solely in -order to protect the party-system: to keep in the hands of a group, -which is largely hereditary and is at all events a small and jealous -caste, all the prestige and emoluments of the higher positions. Even -the grave peril of a national catastrophe, owing to this restriction -of power and responsibility to a group of moderate talent, does not -shake their tradition. We shall, when this war is over, see them -resist reform as energetically as ever. -</p> - -<p> -Within the House of Commons itself a mass of old rules and customs are -maintained for the same purpose. The hours of work are still arranged -on the old supposition, that a Member of Parliament is a man who, with -great self-sacrifice, devotes a large part of his time gratuitously to -the service of his country. The most important work in the nation’s -economy is relegated to the hours when every healthy man is disposed -to rest and recreate himself: indeed, the more important the issue at -stake, the more certain it is to be discussed during the worst working -hours out of the twenty-four. One has only to glance at our -legislators on their benches after dinner to realise the significance -of it. The majority of them are plainly reconciled to the theory that -the heads of the party have done the necessary work during the day: -<i>their</i> business is to keep sufficiently awake to vote correctly. -</p> - -<p> -The arrangement of business is not less iniquitous. The Ministry -decides that certain measures of reform are needed, either in the -interest of the people or in their own interest, and, since they have -an assured majority of “Ayes,” the lengthy debate is almost -superfluous. The passing of the measure has been secured in advance, -or it would not be put forward. The rare event of miscalculation, and -the still rarer event of independent action, need not be regarded. No -Member is, even in these cases, influenced by the long and tiring -speeches which are made about the matter. At one time the debates had -a certain elocutionary elegance, at least; now they represent an -unattractive sham-fight, and abuse is being increasingly substituted -for rhetoric. The most paltry trickery is employed on both sides, -because every man is aware that his speech is really addressed to his -followers outside the House, and he must, <i>in</i> the House, rely on -quite other devices than eloquence. Yet all this pseudo-gravity is -lightened occasionally by sittings in which some measure of the -greatest importance, but not introduced by the Government, is treated -as flippantly as it would be in a humorous debate during a long -sea-voyage. -</p> - -<p> -If a man is instructed by his constituents to represent in the House -some special need of theirs, or some public reform which has millions -to support it, he finds that “the rules of the House,” or the -rules of the oligarchy, will not allow him to introduce it. A very -small fraction of the time of the House is granted for the discussion -of such proposals; but the debate is farcical, and is often looked -forward to in advance as such, because everybody knows what will be -the issue, even if a majority of the House really favours the -proposal. Measures of grave social importance, like women-suffrage, -have been arbitrarily crushed by the oligarchs for thirty years,—as -early as 1886 women-suffrage had 343 supporters on the benches,—and -this tyranny and injustice of a few ministers have led to the most -violent and bitter recrimination. -</p> - -<p> -This is the political machinery to which we entrust the most dedicate -and momentous issues of our national life, and to which we have to -look for the realisation of our most treasured hopes of reform. The -impartial critic will not question that there are men in the political -world as eager for reform as he, or that during the last half-century -some excellent social legislation has been passed. These measures are, -however, due in great part to a studied endeavour to retain or gain -support in the country,—the Insurance Act, for instance,—and many of -them—relating to the sale of cigarettes, to the admission of children -into public-houses, to the flogging of procurers—are small -sentimental reforms which occupy time that could be better employed. -We think that we open a new epoch of civilisation when we give a very -small pension to a very aged worker, but the problem of the roots of -poverty or the abolition of warfare does not enter the -party-programme. Our bishops enthuse over their success in inducing a -complaisant Home Secretary to lay the lash on the backs of a sordid -little group of criminals, and even offer to roll up their own lawn -sleeves for the job; but they are indifferent, or hostile, when other -people would induce our Ministers to amend those brutalities of our -marriage-laws which tend to foster prostitution. -</p> - -<p> -This political machine must be radically and comprehensively reformed -before it can be a fit instrument for the reform of the nation. All -the pyrotechnic distractions and gross irregularities of an election -must be suppressed: all plural voting must be abolished: the comedy of -cars for feeble voters must be forbidden: all indirect bribery, either -of voters or candidates, must be rigorously punished. Candidates must -put a simple and sober statement of their views and proposals before -the electorate, and no further expense should be permitted. Some -system of proportional representation and secondary elections should -ensure that large minorities would not be entirely without -representation. The election should be confined to one day, preferably -a Sunday, and stripped of all melodramatic nonsense and occasion for -corruption. -</p> - -<p> -The party-system will, no doubt, long survive in English political -life. Within twenty years or so the word “Conservative” will, as -in other countries, pass out of use, and the Conservative elements -will unite under the banner of “Liberalism,” in opposition to -“Labour.” It is, of course, the dread of this issue which at -present unites the constitutional parties in opposing reform. One can, -by studying advancing countries, even foresee a next phase. The -Conservative elements will unite in a “Labour” party against the -Socialists; and in the dim future we may, like Anatole France, foresee -a Socialist commonwealth established and an Anarchist party furiously -assailing it. -</p> - -<p> -But, though the party-system be retained (very much modified by -proportional representation), this disgusting sale of honours and -offices, this oligarchic tyranny over the House and the -constituencies, will not survive. Reform of the electoral procedure -will enable a large group of independent men—independent of the large -parties—to enter Parliament, and the removal of the Irish and other -Members, who concentrate on a single issue and are willing to traffic -on other issues, will reduce the old majorities. I do not doubt that -fresh complications will arise. The weakness of proportional -representation is that it will certainly lead to a number of sectarian -groups. “We Catholics” will, of course, return Catholic Members, -ready to sell their votes on various issues in the interest of the -sect; and the Baptists and Methodists, and so on, will be tempted to -retort. We shall have a teetotal group, and a Puritan group, and an -anti-wallpaper group, etc. We must hope that the sterner education of -the electorate will secure that these trivialities do not endanger -grave national interests. The dissolution of the old Conservative -party will leave the Liberal party unable to defend its abuses; it -will have no opportunity of collusion or retaliation. So we may have -in time a political machine—a body of men, appointing their own -leaders, soberly chosen by each 100,000 of the population, regarding -Parliament as a grave national council, not a theatre for the display, -of wit and rhetoric—which will effectively carry out the will of an -advancing people and enlist the interest of the most thoughtful. -</p> - -<p> -I am in all this assuming that sex-barriers and privileges will be -entirely abolished, but I prefer to discuss the position of woman in -its entirety in a later chapter. It must be explained, however, that -in taking 100,000 as a unit of representation, I am contemplating an -electorate of thirteen or fourteen million voters. Something between a -hundred and two hundred Members of Parliament are surely sufficient, -and would make a much more practical and alert body than our present -stuffy, sleepy, and overcrowded House. -</p> - -<p> -It seems very doubtful if a Second Chamber, in any form, is a real -social need. A House of “Lords” is, of course, an insufferable -anomaly and medieval survival. It is amazing that this hereditary -transmission of titles—and such titles!—and wealth has so long -survived the stinging raillery that men like Thackeray poured on it -long ago: it is still more amazing when we measure the intelligence -and public spirit of our “lords.” Even if we weed out the less -intelligent, or those whose interest in horses or actresses or -theology is more conspicuous than their interest in the nation’s -affairs, it is preposterous that such a body should retain the least -control of a properly elected House of Commons. We may trust that -before many decades all hereditary titles will be abolished, and this -will demolish at once the name and the more offensive part of the -character of the Second House. The idea that because one had a -distinguished or fortunate or unscrupulous ancestor, or one has large -estates or an American wife, one is fitted to control our legislators, -is too ludicrous for discussion. It is sometimes pleaded that they -“have a large stake in the country.” One may surely reply, not -only that they would do well to have their large stake more ably -represented, but that poverty has an even greater and more pressing -right to representation. -</p> - -<p> -As to the bishops, it is still more difficult to discover why they are -allowed to control secular legislation. They have been chosen for -certain doctrinal and administrative functions, partly because of -their ability to discharge those functions, partly because they had a -convenient income, and partly because they could command political or -domestic influence. But even the men who have earned a mitre because -they were admirably fitted to wear it, and could hold together a large -group of clergy with conflicting doctrinal ideas, are not obviously -qualified for the work of legislation. Their record in the legislative -assembly is deplorable. They have for ages blessed our militarist and -bellicose traditions. They have, in their own interest, resisted -nearly every important social reform until recent years, and even now -they display a keen social sense only when there is question of -flogging a few score of perverts, or something of that kind. They have -no place in a modern political system, and their presence in it is an -anachronistic reminder of the time when they monopolised education. -</p> - -<p> -Another element of our Second Chamber consists of men who have been -promoted from the First Chamber, generally in order to watch the -interest of their party, or made peers for public service or service -to the party. The various creatures of the party are one of the abuses -we have to correct. Even the others are of questionable value. Is Lord -Morley more judicious, or more alive to the highest interests of the -nation and the race, than the Right Honourable John Morley was? Does -age give wisdom to Lord Gladstone, or did it enhance that of Lord -Roberts? Is it not a fact that nine men out of ten adopt a sluggish -and reluctant attitude in age, and are unfitted to deal with the -proposals of middle-aged men? There is, at all events, occasion for -very careful discrimination, whereas our present practice is to -reward, indiscriminately, a supposed merit or a service rendered to -the party with a seat in the “Upper” House. -</p> - -<p> -The third class of peers calls for the same observation. Success in -manufacture or finance or law, or a willingness to give large sums to -the party-funds, is not an obvious qualification for controlling -legislation. While these men are in the prime of their vigour and -judgment the nation dispenses entirely with their services. We invite -their co-operation in the national business when they are understood -to be too old and inelastic to attend any longer to their less -important commercial concerns. It is, in fact, impossible to frame a -really impressive plea for a Second Chamber of any description. I -venture to say that if an historical inquiry were made into the -services rendered by Second Chambers since the beginning of the -parliamentary system, it would be found that they have rendered little -or no real service, while they have obstructed the work of reform in -every land. Their record—the first thing we ought to -consult—condemns them emphatically. If the Members of a Second -Chamber are not elected by the people, they invariably consult -class-interests: if they are elected, they, as one sees in Australia, -are superfluous. -</p> - -<p> -This political system is completed by the royal assent to Bills and -the royal power to choose Ministers. The former is now an idle form: -the latter is an intolerable abuse. If the people are self-governed, -the leading agents in the Government are Ministers of the people, not -of the king. The Members of Parliament ought to choose the Ministers. -Kingship is a medieval survival, and it is inconsistent with a clear -and practical conception of the nation’s business to retain these -archaic forms and institutions. The trend of political evolution is -visibly from kingdoms to republics. A “monarch” in the twentieth -century is as anachronistic as a “lord”; an hereditary monarch is -an outrage of modern sentiments. Once more, we need to test the -institution by its historical merits or demerits. -</p> - -<p> -Many people seem to regard our Constitution much as certain lowly -tribes regard the mysterious stone which has dropped from heaven -amongst them. Some even of our politicians display a kind of -fetishistic terror if a measure is projected that seems to them to -infringe or enlarge our Constitution. They brandish their spears -before the idol and talk of shedding their blood in its defence. They -are at times “Balliol Scholars,” or something of that kind, yet -one would suppose that they were quite unaware how our Constitution -arose, and what plain and indisputable right we have to revise and -improve it. It is a sort of ancient mansion to which a modern owner -has added billiard-rooms and workshops and a garage. But it has -assuredly not the æsthetic charm of a medieval building, and this age -of ours needs to reconsider, if not reconstruct, it. It will be a fine -day for England when we have a Royal Commission sitting in judgment on -our Constitution: calmly discussing, amongst other matters, the -expediency of asking the throne to retire on half-pay, and all its -parasites to retire on no pay. -</p> - -<p> -I have already described the changes which are likely to occur in that -large political structure, the Empire. The various regions of the -earth which constitute it cling together on the understanding that we -are quite insincere when we talk of them as our “possessions.” It -is a federation of free nations, bound together by thinning ties of -blood and by the advantage of a collective defence. When the military -system is abandoned there will merely be a somewhat faded and amiable -sentiment uniting the imperial fragments to each other more closely -than to their nearer neighbours. One may hope that they will remain -united, for a large empire is a good thing, if it has large ideals: it -is a university of civilisation. But unless we purge our -correspondence of archaic forms the “Colonies” may grow impatient. -The Colonial of the third generation, and often of the second, has -very little respect for England. Candid Australians would make some of -our Imperialists tremble with concern. Our colonial “governors,” -of course, report that loyalty is undiminished, because a few hundred -families in Melbourne and Sydney press with undiminished snobbishness -to their garden-parties. These ornamental nonentities ought to be -withdrawn. Perfect sincerity in our relations with the Colonies will -do most to maintain the federation. The splendid co-operation of -Australia and Canada in the war has shown that we have little to fear. -</p> - -<p> -India and Egypt form a special problem, complicated by the fact that, -in their condition of dependence, they are large and nutritious fields -for the employment of our sons. It would, however, be foolish to -ignore the great change that is taking place in them. Hindus tell me -that, when Lord Morley became Secretary of State, the advanced -Nationalists sent him a private message to the effect that they would -co-operate with a humanitarian like him; and he snubbed them. A very -large proportion of them are beyond the stage of being impressed by -<i>durbars</i>, and are impatient that the masses should be kept in that -childlike state of mind. We set up a fictitious “Oriental -imagination,” and try to make the Orientals live down to it. The -example of China and Japan ought to have destroyed our illusions about -“the East.” The difference is one of culture, which may at any -time be changed. We shall have to deal more frankly and generously -with Egypt and India, or else cease to rail at Prussian or Russian -despotism. -</p> - -<p> -However, Imperialism is not a grave or pressing problem. The Empire -will run its destined evolutionary course. For us the grave matter is -the corruption which clogs our political machine and the perverse -tradition which prevents the multitude from seeing it. The awarding of -honours and lucrative positions should be withdrawn entirely from -politicians, because, even if we compelled them to publish accounts, -they would still add to their resources or prestige by this inveterate -traffic. The king might at least render us the service of purifying -this department of national life: perhaps have a list prepared by the -Privy Council and checked by independent inquiry. I remember how Sir -Leslie Stephen told me that he shrank from being added to the -inglorious list of mayors who had entertained princes or coal-owners -who had financed elections or built chapels. This would cut one of the -chief roots of our present political corruption, but we need to press -for a thorough education of the people. It must realise that the -political machine is dangerously clogged and sluggish: that its -“democratic” character is a sham: and that its energy is wasted on -measures which are insignificant in comparison with the mighty tasks -of education, pacification, and industrial organisation which it ought -to undertake. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch05"> -CHAPTER V.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">In</span> the last sentence of the last chapter I spoke of education, -pacification, and industrial organisation as the three monumental -tasks of a reformed political system. If the supreme object of a -central administration—the sooner we cease to talk of -“government” the better—is to make a people healthy, prosperous, -and happy, these are surely the three reforms to which it will most -resolutely apply itself. I have spoken of the very grave and pressing -nature of one of these reforms: the need to abolish militarism and -war. Later chapters will deal with education, in the very broad and -rich meaning which I assign to the word. Here I would sketch the -problem which seems to me to weigh heavily on us in connection with -the distribution of wealth and the present disorganisation of -industry. -</p> - -<p> -It is useful sometimes to imagine ourselves in the year 3000 or so -looking back with critical eye on the twentieth century. One pictures -the future historian—some narrowly specialised expert on the social -life of the second decade of the twentieth century—discoursing on us. -A strange and interesting people, he will say. They boasted of their -intelligence, and they really did display a creditable measure of -intelligence in their research and their applied science. They -regarded themselves as far superior in humane sentiment to the Middle -Ages, to which they properly belong, and they put forward many -excellent vague proposals of social improvement. Yet it is not easy to -understand their slavery to ancient prejudices, sometimes of a quite -barbaric character. A superficial observer would say that the -contradiction was due to their unhappy practice of leaving the -majority of the community at a low level of culture, so that the -intelligent minority were checked by a slower-minded majority. But it -is a singular fact that some of the most intelligent men among the -minority, such as Mr. A. Balfour and Mr. F. E. Smith, held much the -same views as the agricultural workers, and made a kind of religion, -which they called Conservatism, of this obstinate retention of old -traditions. They seem, with all their pride in their culture, to have -mistaken their place in the evolution of the race. No people is -entitled to be called civilised which complacently tolerates war, -squalid and widespread poverty, dense areas of ignorance, political -corruption, and the many other remnants of barbarism which they -tolerated. The twentieth century was the last hour of barbarism, lit -by a few rays of the civilisation which dawned in the twenty-first -century. -</p> - -<p> -If the infliction of pain and misery is, as I believe, the worst form -of crime, this retention of war and poverty is the gravest of our -social transgressions. But the guilt of our generation in regard to -these two crimes is very unequal. The way to abolish war is clear, but -the remedy of this other open sore of our social organism, a poverty -which stunts and embitters the lives of millions in every large -civilisation, is not at all clear. The plain man who, oppressed by the -spectacle of this desolating, unchanging poverty, seeks a remedy in -social literature, is at once beset by a dozen rival theorists. The -Socialist, the Anarchist, the Eugenist, the Malthusian, the -Single-Taxer, and other austere thinkers press on him their -contradictory formulae and their mutual abuse; these in turn are -assailed contemptuously by men who are not less acquainted with -economic matters; and the older political parties observe, with a -sigh, that poverty seems to be an inherent evil of every industrial -order, and we can do no more than mitigate its hardships. To this last -position the plain man usually comes. -</p> - -<p> -Let us grant at once that the older political parties have done much -toward the alleviation of poverty. No one who is acquainted with the -condition of the workers a hundred years ago can hesitate to admit -this. Impatience is too rare a virtue, it is true, but this does not -dispense us from cultivating wisdom. A great deal has been won, and -generally won by the middle class, for the oppressed workers. Between -1830 and 1880, at least, thousands of middle-class men were working in -Europe for the advance and enlightenment of the workers. The old -doctrine of <i>laissez-faire</i> has been forced to compromise with -decency. We have entirely abolished the horrible exploitation of cheap -child-labour which was common early in the nineteenth century. Our -Francis Places and Robert Owens have won for the worker the right to -form Trade Unions, and others the free education of his children. We -no longer permit the employer to fix the conditions and hours of -labour as he wills. The cotton-worker of Manchester, labouring twelve -or fourteen hours a day, and living in a squalid cellar, one hundred -years ago, would be amazed if he could visit the factories and homes -and places of amusement of his grandchildren. Even the poorer workers -are no longer left to God and the clergy; while the bulk of the -workers have numbers of cheap luxuries which would have seemed an -apocalyptic dream to the worker of Napoleon’s day. -</p> - -<p> -But let us not imagine that we have got our axe into the roots of -poverty and are in a fair way to abolish it. This is one of the most -dangerous fallacies of our age; and against that comfortable assurance -I, knowing well all that has been done, plead that not one of our -reforms makes for the abolition or the material restriction of -poverty. We pension the very aged worker and the still more aged -widow: on the pauper scale. We build substantial, if rather cheerless, -homes for the destitute, and we put warm, if ignominious, clothing on -the back of the orphan. We appoint minimum wages, and permit maximum -prices. We have labour bureaux, and district visitors, and a Salvation -Army, and a Church Army. All of which means that we give a drink to -the crucified; it might be well to study if we can cease to crucify. -</p> - -<p> -The plain man or woman who earnestly wishes to help in the improvement -of life will inquire first, and most resolutely, what the actual range -and depth of poverty are; will study, secondly, how far our measures -of reform afford us any hope of curtailing it; and will, in the third -place, ask whether there is any other way of action which does offer -some hope of restricting, if not removing, the evil. -</p> - -<p> -In the mind of many people poverty means that somewhere in the darker -depths of our cities, happily remote from the shopping centres, there -are a number of people who, from lack of skill or excess of drink, -cannot find regular employment, and must live. ... One does not know -exactly how they live, but certainly on unpleasantly short and dry -rations. In earlier times one dropped a half-sovereign into the -poor-box at church for these creatures, if they would come to church -and learn resignation. To-day one subscribes to the Charity -Organisation Society or the Salvation Army, or joins one of the many -enterprising associations which are going to make the poor richer -without making the rich poorer. We have a social conscience. We -believe in <i>laissez-faire</i>, but, being humane, we will not push it to -extremes. At the same time, being sensible men, we are not going to -push humanitarianism to extremes. The phrase-maker is the great -benefactor. -</p> - -<p> -For a first acquaintance with poverty I would recommend a man to spend -a few hours, some Saturday evening, among those markets of the poor -which still line many of our more dingy thoroughfares. As the night -draws on, and the oil-lamps begin to flare and splutter over the -stalls, the grim courts and narrow streets of the district discharge -their grey streams of life upon the market. There is plenty of -laughter, you observe; there are plenty of round-faced matrons, with -clean, honest eyes and comfortable dress. “We ain’t got much -money, but we do live,” I heard one of them remark, in an interval -between bursts of raillery. The wives of regularly employed, and often -not ill-paid, workers are there, as well as poorer folk. But study -some of the quieter figures which move slowly among the throng or -linger enviously before the cheap shops. Notice the puny, shrivelled -infants, with quaint staring eyes, which, at the door of the -public-house, lie lightly in the arms of women whose faces are bloated -with drink and coarse food: the lean and ragged boys and girls, with -hollow and prematurely sharpened eyes, who hang about the -fruit-stalls, ready to dart upon the rotten castaways, or foster, in -darker spots, the premature sex-development which will drain their -scanty strength: the woman who, with drawn face, waits near the Red -Lion to see how many shillings her sodden brute of a husband will at -length hand her for a week’s shopping: the weary old couple who have -seen better days, and now pass in silence through the babel of -vulgarity: the haggard-faced widow in mouldy black who hides her -paltry Sunday dinner in a worn bag: the eager eyes of the poorer -hawkers, which light up pathetically when a penny comes their way: the -men whose faces change at a drunken jibe into such faces as we have -seen behind the bars of a cage in a zoological garden, and the crowd -of men, women, and children rushing to enjoy the gratuitous spectacle -of a fight: the cheap, middle-aged prostitute, whose features are a -caricature of the features of woman. -</p> - -<p> -You may see these things in all parts of London—north, south, east, -and west—every Saturday evening, and many other evenings, all the -year round. You may see them in all the other large towns and cities -of Britain, and the cities of France and Germany and the United States -and all other “great civilisations.” I have studied them on -Saturday nights in half the cities of Britain: in Amsterdam and -Brussels and Cologne, in Paris and Nice, in Venice and Rome and -Naples, in New York and Chicago: and in the light of our historical -research one sees their ancestors in all the great cities of all the -great civilisations that ever were. As it was in the beginning ... But -that refers to the glory of God. -</p> - -<p> -Follow to their homes these more pathetic figures of a London crowd. -You need not do so literally, for more observant and sympathetic -visitors have been there before you, and they told London long ago, as -far as London was willing to hear, how the majority of its citizens -live. Mr. Booth’s book, <i>Life and Labour in London</i>, had better be -suppressed when its work is done, lest the men and women of a more -humane age learn too much about us; also Mr. Rowntree’s book, which -shows this same fetid poverty lying at the feet of a superb minster, -the symbol of ages of ecclesiastical wealth and power; and many other -books. Let me summarise the relevant record of the natural history of -London. -</p> - -<p> -We may begin with the lowest depth, with life as it is lived in some -of the streets which still linger about Covent Garden, and in east and -west and south. We are beginning to see the grim humour of tolerating -the existence of these hotbeds of corruption under the very shadow of -our marble palaces of justice and our marble hotels for millionaires, -and we are destroying them; but the life remains still in sufficient -quantity to fill a large town. In tenements of this order fifteen -rooms out of twenty are indescribably filthy. Legions of bugs lurk by -day behind the faded rags of ancient wallpaper or in the crevices of -the unwashed floor, or even venture forth as securely as if they were -conscious of free citizenship in these places. The “windows” are a -rough mosaic of dirty glass and roughly plastered paper. The ceiling -is pale black, the floor filthy. A table, one or two dilapidated -chairs, a kind of bed—the “landlord” would, in most cases, not -raise two shillings on the lot—and an entire family of ragged, -vermin-eaten human beings fill this foul box, which is often only -eight or ten feet square. -</p> - -<p> -These people are thieves, cheap prostitutes, hawkers, porters, -charwomen, flower-sellers, ragmen—the most pitiful of the irregulars -which we suffer, age after age, to live and breed and die beyond the -extreme fringe of our industrial army. Sometimes they have nearly as -much food to eat as a workhouse-idler: generally not. Drink—the vile -mixtures of the cheaper public-house—they have more constantly; and -their children are not in their teens before they are familiar with -all the vice and crime and brutality which seven out of ten of these -rooms breed as naturally as they breed lice or bugs. In winter the -doors and windows are sealed, and men, women, and children huddle -together or, at times, crouch over a few lighted sticks. And year by -year, century by century, babies are ushered into this underworld in -edifying abundance, to live its ghastly life until the yellow frame -and dull brain are worn out. -</p> - -<p> -Shocking, you will say, but happily rare. Do you know that, according -to the best authorities, 50,000 men, women, and children in London -alone live in this atmosphere of squalor and brutality and chronic -hunger? -</p> - -<p> -Let us pass to the next higher circle of the modern Inferno—the -category of casual or very badly paid labour and chronic poverty, the -makers of your cheap furniture and clothes and brushes, your -match-boxes and chocolate-boxes, the hawkers and costers and regular -porters and dockers. Now there are generally two rooms to each family, -but the vermin still thrive in more than half of them, and the rooms -are filthy, and the children breathe an air that is foul with drink -and cursing and the most open and gross sexuality: not now in fifteen -cases out of twenty, it is true, but in ten cases out of twenty. Food -is habitually insufficient, for labour is uncertain, and profit is -infinitesimal; and, as a man <i>must</i> drink, there are constant -disturbances to break the monotony and help one to forget the -customary hunger. You may have at times noticed the dejected hawker -returning, on a wet summer’s day, with his tomatoes unsold: or the -children eager to collect fragments of the lids of orange-boxes in the -winter. Countess Russell told me that she once visited, unexpectedly, -a group of homes of this class, within a few minutes’ walk of Gordon -Square, in the depth of winter. Hardly any had the material for a -fire, and few had food in the house. So they live, year in, year out; -and all that we propose to do is to give them five shillings a week -each if they will sustain the burden honestly for six decades, or -house and feed them in jail if they do not succeed in curbing their -criminal impulses. -</p> - -<p> -Once, in the Westminster Court, I saw a young and humane judge hand -certain tickets to the jury, when they had established the guilt of -two petty criminals of this class. “These, gentlemen,” he said, -“are permits to inspect the jail; go some day and see the place to -which you send criminals.” A very wise and benevolent innovation, -but we still await the judge who will send the jury to inspect the -homes in which these men conceive crime. -</p> - -<p> -About 400,000 citizens of the greatest city in the world belong to -this class. If 400,000 do not constitute a sufficiently important -problem, let us see the homes of the next category. These are the -irregularly employed and badly paid, though not the worst paid, -workers: costers, labourers, dockers, etc. There are about a million -of them in London alone. They know quite well what hunger is: for -weeks together, sometimes, the wage does not suffice to buy that -minimum quantity of nitrogen and carbon which men of science have -declared to be necessary, and the money is ill expended. They know -what cold is, for many a hard spell of winter finds them in want. They -have two or three rooms to each family, but, as a rule, not much of -that “Christian reticence” on which our clergy congratulate us. -</p> - -<p> -To the great majority of these million and a half of London’s poor, -sexual pleasure is the one cheap luxury; and we encourage them to -breed industriously. My wife, with other ladies and gentlemen, -addresses them on the subject from the tail of a cart in South London, -and teaches the heavy-burdened mothers how to avoid having so many -children; and the leader of this little group was sourly and -menacingly (and quite falsely) told by a distinguished Churchman, -sitting in a Royal Commission, that they were breaking the law of the -land. A friend of mine has been hounded out of the United States by -the police for attempting to give similar information to the poorer -mothers of New York. -</p> - -<p> -Even in this third and very large category of London homes there is -much filth; and the windows, across which is drawn an odd cloth or a -ragged and dirty curtain, abound in broken panes. They have periods of -comparative plenty, when the children get boots and socks, and their -elders soak in beer and may even venture to a cinematograph show, if -the crude pictures on its garish façade promise a sufficiently silly -or sufficiently bloody programme. All that the police and the clergy -care about is that not more than an inch or two of underclothing are -exhibited in these places. They have also periods of want, when the -clothes go to the pawnshop, and life runs on the exasperating, -brutalising lines of the lower class. The daily round of life is -itself stupefying. At five or six they are dragged out of an -insufficient sleep, and they dully take their tea (of a kind) and -bread and margarine on a dirty table. After ten or twelve hours of -anxious quest of minute profits they return home for a slightly better -meal—a kipper, perhaps, or a few bits of cheap meat—too tired in -mind and body to do more than smoke and drink. They have plenty of -fun, of a sort, and take their tragedies lightly; but the angels, if -there are any, must fold their wings over their faces at the aspect of -these fellow-immortals. Even a politician might be expected to blush -for this self-governing democracy. It is a squalid, degrading, -stupefying life, below the level of civilisation. -</p> - -<p> -Nearly one-third of the citizens of London do not rise above this -level. The three classes that I have described, or the mass of people -who spread continuously over these classes, were found by Mr. Booth to -number 1,300,000 of the four and a half million inhabitants of the -city. The figure for the Greater London of to-day is, of course, -immensely higher. “The submerged tenth” is a most unfortunate -phrase. It leads many, who know little of these matters, to suppose -that only a tenth of the inhabitants of London are very poor. The -truth is that a tenth live in a condition of misery, filth, and -degradation of which the ordinary decent citizen can form no -conception. They are the shirkers, the abnormal, and the worst casual -workers. But the life of this further million—or nearly one-fourth of -the total inhabitants of the Metropolis—the irregular or badly paid -workers, is a grave and accusing problem to every man of decent -sentiment. Their condition is not consistent with civilisation. -Certainly large numbers of them live clean and cheerful lives, but -even in these cases it is scandalous that sober and willing toil -should receive wage enough only to secure cleanliness and the -necessaries of life; while a far larger number sink under the burden, -and are dirty, intemperate, gross, and improvident. -</p> - -<p> -Conceive the extension of this class all over Britain: the further -vast contingents of this army of poverty in the slums of Glasgow and -Liverpool and Manchester, in all our great manufacturing and shipping -towns, even in the heart of pretty rural England, where the wretched -wage and low standard and large family stunt and degrade our -agricultural worker. It is a very serious error to imagine that this -is merely an unhappy issue of the crowding in our great cities. In -picturesque and highly respectable York Mr. Rowntree found that thirty -per cent. of the citizens lived in very real poverty: that ten per -cent. did not earn money enough to buy a normal and sufficient -quantity of plain food, to say nothing of luxuries. -</p> - -<p> -This is the problem of poverty. If you want it in figures, a fourth of -the inhabitants of London, where rents are appalling, live on from -eighteen to twenty-one shillings weekly per family, and some hundreds -of thousands live on less than this. One might with some profit and -pertinence go on to inquire into the life of the half of the -population of London who are described as “comfortable workers.” -Whether the little luxuries they have are a fit reward for the hard -work they usually do, whether there can be any development of -distinctively human powers among them, whether we may cherish a -feeling of entire security in basing our political system on that -foundation, are questions worth putting; and some day they will put -them to us. But it is better for the moment to confine ourselves to -that pitiful fourth of the community which lives in degrading poverty -because it has only irregular or wretchedly paid employment. Is it an -exaggeration to suspect that this vast acreage of poverty will make -the future historian hesitate to class us as civilised? -</p> - -<p> -Our social structure is of the nature of a pyramid. At its apex, -glittering in the sun, calling forth our pride and praise, are culture -and wealth and power, and all the fine things they bring into -existence. At its base are the supporting stones, crushed into the -soil by the towering mass: the millions of stunted or brutalised -lives. I know both extremes of this social order, and I have felt, -hundreds of times, that if it is permanently to retain this pyramidal -form, the refined lives and great achievements of the few resting on -this broad base of squalid and undeveloped lives, civilisation is an -impossible dream. I have felt that, if men and women realised the full -meaning and range of poverty, they would suspend the progress of art -and science, of commerce and industry, for a hundred years, if need -were, in order to concentrate the best intelligence of the race upon -the search for the remedy of this vast disorder. And, if it be true, -as I think, that these people, once dead, are dead for ever, and that -the tradition of a hundredfold reward in heaven for their privations -on earth is an illusion with which pastors and masters have reconciled -them to their burdens, I would, if I could, send that assurance like a -trumpet-blast through the slums of the world and make this vast army -of the stricken summon us, the intelligent minority, to a tardy -judgment. -</p> - -<p> -I do not, as will appear later, advocate the equal distribution of -wealth. I do assuredly not plead that one who has wealth should give -it to the poor: to see it gather again, perhaps, in less worthy hands. -I add the contrast of wealth at this point only in order to make quite -sensible the darkness of the life of millions. One’s first task is -to establish, with what faint power the pen has, the appalling -magnitude of the evil. If any very large number of us did really grasp -the human significance of these facts and figures, the industrial -problem would not long be resigned, as it is, to bloodless economists -and obscure propagandist bodies. -</p> - -<p> -And the second aim of those who would see the world bettered is, as I -said, to inquire into the effect of the remedies we actually trust and -apply. Here we enter the mistier region of controversy, and I can but -set out the grounds of my sincere convictions. -</p> - -<p> -Of labour bureaux, in the first place, it will not be doubted that -they are an advantage to employed and employers. They are an advance -toward organisation. They bring the worker more promptly to the work -that awaits him. But they, obviously, do not add one iota to the -insufficient work, for which myriads are struggling: they do not add -one penny to the wage that is earned: and they are of little or no -service to the poorest workers, who chiefly concern us. -</p> - -<p> -Old age pensions and insurance and free education are, similarly, -great advantages to the workers, in which we may justly take some -pride, but they do not promise to abolish or greatly diminish poverty. -The pension, or the insurance benefit, is necessarily granted on the -poverty scale, and is in some sense a recognition of it as one of the -permanent institutions of life; and the elementary instruction which -we give has raised the qualifications for work, as well as the -equipment, so that the proportion of unemployed, or ill-employed, is -little changed. Nor would it be entirely wrong to say that, in -relieving the poor man of the direct charge of education and -insurance, we have put the difference on his rent. -</p> - -<p> -Of our poor-law system, that lamentable compromise with a stupid old -tradition, it is difficult to speak with patience. The able-bodied -idlers of our workhouses and our countryside are a mockery of the -workers. The tramp, the professional idler in search of idleness, -maintained in his repulsive ways by an undiscriminating system of -poorhousing and by a large body of “charitable” women, is one of -the quaintest survivals of an older order. His father idled through -life before him, and he in turn drags along the road a mate and -children who will sustain the ignoble tradition. He ought to be -washed, clothed, and put on an industrial estate; and, if his disease -prove incurable, he ought to be anæthetised out of existence, or at -least prevented from reproducing his like. -</p> - -<p> -Then there are the emigration societies. One fears that in large part -they transport to the colonies either the men whom the colonies do not -want, the men who will enlarge the slum-area of colonial cities, or -the men whom we ought not to spare. At the best, emigration is a means -of leaving the problem of poverty to our grandchildren, who will find -no more open spaces for the dumping of our human surplus. In point of -fact, however, apart from the dispatch of a small proportion of -specially prepared boys, emigration is not affecting our problem of -poverty. The half-million very poor of London, with the corresponding -hundreds of thousands in our other cities, do not make emigrants at -all; and very few of the next and far larger class are, or could be, -fit for agricultural deportation. -</p> - -<p> -Lastly of these devices which the less thoughtful are apt to regard as -relieving poverty, we have the Salvation Army, which is quite the most -preposterous social sham of our age. But its religious-social -burlesque, its pretentious concealment of bad results and loud -proclamation of good results, its refusal to print a plain -balance-sheet from which a social student can measure the definite -good done and the cost of it, its undercutting of existing work, and -so on, have been sufficiently exposed to excuse us from dwelling on -it. It contains some earnest men and women, and has had undoubted -successes, but the system is too nebulous, garrulous, and wasteful to -merit serious attention. -</p> - -<p> -Let us turn to graver matters. The mass of the workers, apart from the -more advanced bodies of Socialists and Syndicalists, believe that the -solution of the problem of poverty will be found in the development of -Trade Unions and of the political power of Labour. By political power, -with the aid of sympathetic members of the middle-class, they have won -the right of combination and a whole code of labour-laws; by an -increased political power, ultimately a political all-power, they will -secure all the legislation they deem expedient. -</p> - -<p> -In spite of the distraction of many of the workers by Anarchists and -Syndicalists, who despise political action, and in spite of the -restrictions of the franchise which are maintained by the older -political parties, it seems plain that at some not very remote date -the workers will control the world. Ever since the door of the -political world was opened to Demos, eighty years ago, he was certain -eventually to reach the throne, no matter how long he might be seduced -to tarry by the way. Those who think otherwise must put their trust in -the permanent unintelligence of the workers. The interests of the mass -of workers are so far identical that they must finally combine to -promote them. We are plainly moving, all over the world, in this -direction. In Australasia, where the virgin soil permitted an -exceptionally rapid growth, we see the farthest point yet reached, and -within a decade or so Labour will have unshakable power all over -Australia, at least. “Conservatism” has already disappeared, or -changed its name to “Liberalism.” In Germany and France and -Belgium we see the same disposition of the rival parties to unite in -face of advancing Demos. In England there are signs that we shall at -no distant date see a similar redistribution of political forces, and -it is anticipated in the United States. In all countries the political -energies are slowly gathering about two poles: Liberal (including the -old Conservatives) and Labour. Even in such countries as Spain, -Russia, Turkey, Japan, and China the initial stages of the development -may be detected. When the workers at last unite and secure an absolute -majority-power, they will legislate on familiar lines. Wages will -rise, hours of labour will be shortened, and place will be found for -larger numbers of workers. -</p> - -<p> -It is little use moralising on this change. It is coming on like the -tide. There will, no doubt, be temporary abuses of power, as there -have always been, but the workers will learn the vital needs of an -industrial order, and they will not starve the roots of their new -prosperity. Let us assume that a state of equilibrium has been -reached: that the workers have paramount political power, and wages -are considerably increased. Does this promise a solution of the -problem of poverty? -</p> - -<p> -I am purposely leaving out of account the contemporary growth of rings -and trusts. Paradoxical as it may seem to say so, they are not an -essential element of the problem. The employers will (as is happening) -form unions in face of the men’s unions, and the strain laid on -individual employers and small companies will favour the growth of -trusts. In so far as these make for economy, they are clearly useful; -but no doubt they will be tempted to use their monopoly to dictate -arbitrary prices. When, however, the workers have a majority-power, -they can either slay the trusts or draw their teeth. On the other -hand, a beneficent or labour-saving trust will not afford any -advantage to the less skilful workers, who make up the great army of -the poor, and it will reduce prices only by an unimportant fraction. -The chief significance of trusts is that they tend to annihilate the -individualist employer, who was once considered an indispensable -institution, and they may thus dispose obstinate admirers of the older -industrial order to welcome a radical change. They are more deadly to -the middle-class than to the working-class. -</p> - -<p> -The really vital question is whether the raising of wages and -reduction of hours, accompanied by a large amount of secondary -legislation to the advantage of the worker, will solve <i>the</i> social -problem: which is not the problem of the existence of a few thousand -prostitutes, but the problem of the existence of, in every country, -several million people who live in privation and squalor, and cannot -develop human personalities. On this I offer two or three -observations. -</p> - -<p> -Does the price of commodities rise in proportion to the rise of wages? -If it does, the securing of a nominally higher wage is clearly a -delusion. This seems, however, to be our experience. In England, -during sixty or seventy years of trade-combination, wages have risen, -and hours and conditions of labour have been improved, to a remarkable -extent, in spite of open competition in an overcrowded market. But -prices and rents also have risen, and it is not clear that there has -been a net advantage to the worker. It is very difficult to answer the -question precisely, because other factors (such as the application of -science) have increased the productiveness of labour and have -cheapened certain commodities (books, clothes, pictures, tea, etc.). -The workers have shared these advantages, and are in a position of far -greater comfort than they were formerly. But in seriously testing the -claim and promise of the Trade Unionist and the Labour politician we -have to endeavour to subtract the improvement in the workers’ -condition which is due to the application of science, and of better -methods, to production and distribution. When we make allowance for -this, it is certainly not clear that the rise of wages shows a margin -over the increased price of commodities: that, in other words, the -higher wage is a real advantage. -</p> - -<p> -It is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. When wages are -raised, who pays the increment in the cost of production? The employer -or the consumer? It is a familiar experience, and an inherent -necessity of our industrial order, that the consumer does; and the -consumer is the worker—the middle-class or wealthy consumer generally -gets the difference in other ways. It would be bold to say that our -employers have paid even a fraction of the increased wage out of their -own pockets. More usually they put a fifth of a penny on commodities -when the worker has secured a sixth. Competition alone restrains them, -and this is largely superseded by agreements. We have had innumerable -instances of this during the war. Class after class of workers claimed -a higher wage, and prices rose higher and higher “on account of the -increased cost of production.” If a Labour Government were to -prevent employers from increasing the cost of commodities and raising -rents in exact proportion to the demand for higher wages—were, in -other words, to direct the employers to pay the increase of wage out -of their own profits—we should soon see the end of this industrial -order. The State would be compelled to become the employer. -</p> - -<p> -This seems to be true of practically all the legislation which a -political power of Labour could secure. Compensation, pennons, and -insurance are typical instances. The new demand on the employer’s -profits is met in one of two ways: he withdraws voluntary -contributions to these or similar purposes, or he raises the price of -his goods. The larger consumer meets the burden by raising his rents -or fees. The unreflecting worker imagines that “the country” pays -for these things; he forms, in this respect, a larger proportion of -the country than he thinks. -</p> - -<p> -The second and more important consideration is that this power to -dictate wages and pass measures in favour of the workers does not hold -out a prospect of absorbing that surplusage of labour which is our -real problem. I am assuming that even the poorer and unskilled workers -will have their unions and their share of the political power. Their -wage will rise, and the price of their food and clothing and rooms -will rise; but it is of greater consequence to reflect that the less -competent workers on the fringe of the industrial army will receive -little advantage. Some benefit they will certainly have, since the -curtailment of hours and the slowing of the pace of production will -make room for more workers in each industry; though we must remember -that the pay of these new workers will either be taken from the older -workers, whose hours are shortened, or—which comes to the same -thing—will be put on the commodities. The total production will not -be increased, and the employer will not relinquish his profit. In any -case, even this method of finding room for more workers will affect -relatively few. -</p> - -<p> -Again I may quote the experience of Australia, where the workers have -very great power. In Melbourne, alone, in 1913, I found 30,000 men -unemployed; and there and in other cities the tainted area of poverty -and distress was increasing. All the elaborate organisation and -political power of the workers could not add to the sum of available -work and thus absorb the surplus of labour. I am contending that until -we do this we do not solve the poverty-problem. The chief cause of -this appalling social disease is the inequality of natural -endowment—either of muscle or nerve—in face of an unorganised system -of production. There is not work, with regular and decent wage, for -all. The weaker, the lazier, the more drunken, and the slower of -intellect, are crowded out of the ranks and driven to casual -employment. This is the tap-root of poverty, and the benefits secured -for those who are in regular employment will not affect it. -</p> - -<p> -Thirdly, this labour-legislation will not touch the second chief root -of poverty, the extreme inequality of the distribution of wealth. -Since wealth is, in this regard, a fixed quantity,—we are not -concerned here with the effect of fresh applications of science to -production,—an accumulation of commodities at one point leads to -thinness at another. I am not pleading for equality of income. Many -workers have an exaggerated idea of the gain they might have by an -equal distribution of wealth. The total annual income of the -population of the United Kingdom is now believed to be about -£2,400,000,000. If this were distributed equally amongst the heads of -our ten million families and our large army of unmarried workers, the -result would be barely £200 a year; and the equalisation of taxation, -the granting of substantial pensions, etc., would further reduce it. -There is, however, no serious need to discuss this idea. I see no -moral principle which forbids that we should reward a man according to -his productiveness or inventiveness or other value to the community, -although his fellows are not responsible for their lesser capacity; -and it is idle to speculate on some imaginary phase of human -development in which the more gifted and more useful will refuse to be -more richly rewarded than the less useful. -</p> - -<p> -But it does not follow that the community has no right to control the -distribution of wealth. At one time such a proposal would have been -branded “robbery.” To-day even Conservatives do not threaten to -remove the death-duties and graduated income-tax by which we -confiscate some of the wealth of the more fortunate. The only question -is, to what <i>extent</i> we may or ought to prevent the excessive -accumulation of wealth, or to disperse it after accumulation. -</p> - -<p> -There occur at once two methods of enrichment which invite careful -attention. One is the power to transmit wealth to one’s descendants -in perpetuity, or until they choose to dissipate it. Most of us will -admit that in a social order at all resembling our own—and I do not -care to speculate about Utopian or imaginable orders—the power to win -advantages for one’s children as well as for oneself is a sound -incentive to work. But the wish to relieve one’s descendants of the -need to work, to make them for ever a burden on the community, is a -perverse ideal. It is one of those unsound primitive traditions which -we detect in the actual stream of our ideas and sentiments, and -instances are not unknown in our time of such holders of hereditary -wealth revolting against the tradition. When we realise that this -inherited wealth means, in plain terms, the right to have a hundred or -a thousand fellow-men working for us or our descendants in perpetuity, -for no merit or service on our part, and when we consider the folly -and waste which so commonly follow large inherited fortunes, we must -regard this tradition as evil and indefensible. One wonders how long -the working community is going to sustain this burden, and how long -refined men and women will imagine that they have a right to live like -Oriental potentates because they had a shrewd or a gifted ancestor. -</p> - -<p> -It is sometimes said in their favour that they employ labour with -their wealth. I have heard bishops give them this foolish consolation. -As if the wealth would cease to exist, and to employ labour, if it -were in the pockets of a thousand men, instead of the pockets of one -Duke of Norfolk or Duke of Westminster! The only difference would be -that this wealth, instead of paying a thousand servants and -tradespeople to work for the comfort of one family, would pay a -thousand men, who would lose nothing by the change of employment, to -produce comfort for a thousand families. Meantime, the Duke is -embarrassed by his wealth, or spends it on superfluous things, and the -thousand families live in vicious misery. Their babies die for lack of -good milk in the hot summer, and the rich youth or maiden—I have -known this done—carelessly takes a bath of milk. Let us understand -clearly this economic truth: great wealth is the accumulation in one -man’s hands of the right or power of a thousand families to employ -labour. -</p> - -<p> -The second source of wealth which invites consideration is the -unearned increment on ground-values, or any other unearned and -accidental increase of value. It is now very commonly admitted that -this belongs to the community, and I need not enlarge on it. -</p> - -<p> -We have, as I said, admitted the community’s right to interfere with -this scandalous clotting of wealth, and no doubt a Labour-majority -would increase death-duties until money could not be transmitted -beyond, at most, the third generation, and not in quantities -sufficient to make men and women a lifelong burden on the working -community. Possibly some day there will be a general scrutiny of -titles to wealth: not merely as far back as the enclosure of the -commons a hundred years ago, but back to the landing in this country -of William of Normandy. Possibly a day will come when men and women -will conceal the fact that their ancestors “came over with the -Conqueror,” since it generally implies that the descendants of those -lucky adventurers have not done an honest day’s work since that -time. Possibly the sons of some of our “captains of industry” of -a century ago will burn the family records, lest some prying historian -should learn by what horrible exploitation of child-labour the fortune -was made. Prescriptive right is a purely artificial right created by -the community, and it may be withdrawn by the community. -</p> - -<p> -Such measures as these a Labour Government will, no doubt, eventually -take, and they will do much to relieve poverty and increase the -production of commodities of general use. But they will add rather to -the comfort of workers who are already above the poverty-line, and -they will not prevent an excessive accumulation of wealth, though they -may finally disperse it. This means the continuance of deep poverty. -As long as a gifted man may amass a fortune in a comparatively short -time, without adding to the wealth of the community, there will be -squalid poverty somewhere. -</p> - -<p> -In sum, if the political ideal of Labour were fully realised, it would -not put an end to, and might not very materially lessen, our -widespread poverty. It would not enlarge the amount of available -productive employment, and so the weak in body or mind or character -would still form a pitiable army of slum-dwellers. It would, having no -more control of industry than the present Parliament has, be unable to -meet any grave disturbance of the industrial world, such as the -release of hundreds of thousands of workers by disarmament. It would -have no power to secure for the workers their full share of the -advantage of any new application of science, and it would be unable to -guide into new positions the men displaced by this application. We -should continue to suffer the disadvantage of an imperfectly organised -industrial system; each new enlistment of the great forces of nature -or of the cunning of science in the service of man would enrich a few -and impoverish many. In order to meet all these grave difficulties—in -order to do more than secure certain advantages for the better -equipped workers—a Labour Power would be forced radically to alter -its principle and undertake the organisation of employment. -</p> - -<p> -This organisation of industry seems to be the only device which will -gradually restrict, and finally abolish, poverty. The opposition to it -of middle-class workers and of so many artisans is unintelligible. It -is time that we ceased to confine the term “workers” to the poorer -and less cultivated caste among those who work: time that the lawyer -and actor and housewife claimed that honourable title no less than the -carpenter or navvy. In restricting the term to manual and badly paid -workers we have concealed from ourselves the real community of -interest of all who work. All of us, except those who live on the -labour of others, have an interest in the proper organisation of the -work of the world and the removal from our shoulders of this -intolerable burden of the irregular workers and the idlers. The -middle-class has an even greater interest than what is narrowly called -the working-class, because the tendency of Labour-legislation is, and -will increasingly be, to put the heavier charge, not on large -employers, who easily evade it, but on the middle-class generally. -Here again the war has luminously illustrated our position. Both -employers and employed (in the current industrial sense) have made -great profit by it: the middle-class generally has suffered severely. -A proper organisation of work would have prevented this. -</p> - -<p> -It can easily be shown that this national organisation of employment, -with graded incomes according to service rendered, is the only remedy -of poverty. The chief root of poverty is, as I said, the insufficiency -of properly paid work, and this is entirely due to the haphazard and -unsystematic nature of our industrial order. The private employer -looks only to the actual demand of commodities, or to the actual funds -for buying commodities. He has no interest in the moneyless -unemployed; indeed, he finds it a convenience to have a large number -from which he may select his workers. As a result, a large proportion -of our people are unable to demand their normal share of commodities -because they are not employed, or because they have no wage; and they -are not employed because they do not demand commodities. Plainly, the -community alone can alter this paradoxical state of things; and, since -the community is now compelled by its more humane sentiments to carry -the poor on its shoulders, it may at length be induced to see that it -would be better to set them on their own feet. In a properly organised -industrial system a worker will be paid by the commodities which he or -she actually produces, or their exchange-value. There can be no such -thing as a superfluous worker. It is only a lamentable issue of our -perverse pre-scientific system that millions must lack the food and -clothing and luxuries which they themselves could and would, under a -more orderly system, produce. -</p> - -<p> -This implies, of course, the transfer to the community, at a just -payment, of the land, the mines, and the means of transit, and the -gradual extension of municipal enterprise to productive and -distributive industries. I am contending only for principles, and -would refer the closer inquirer to such detailed constructive works as -those of Mr. H. G. Wells. It would be futile to construct a rigid -scheme of collectivist organisation. Such industries as the press, -literature, art, etc., present difficulties which it would be foolish -to override. But these affect comparatively few workers, and it is -pedantry of an unintelligent kind to wrangle over them while we have a -clear case in regard to other industries which involve many millions -of workers. We would do well, however, to remember that the -middle-class industries themselves are overcrowded and chaotic, and -that most members of that class would gain by organisation, wherever -it is possible. Instead of shrinking from it and inventing -difficulties, we ought to be eager to discover its possibilities. -</p> - -<p> -I ignore also certain more or less academic objections which have been -made against this proposal to organise employment. Mill’s essay <i>On -Liberty</i> is a monument of the futility of this kind of reasoning. Mill -was a civil servant, and, except in the case of the idle and criminal, -no restriction of individual liberty is proposed other than that which -Mill cheerfully endured. Middle-class men are apt to take fright at -the word “Socialism.” It ought to be by this time generally known -that half a dozen very different theories pass under that name, and it -is particularly unintelligent to confuse the extreme and the moderate -proposals. Nearly the whole of the employment in any civilisation -could be organised without laying on any who are willing to work a -greater restraint than is laid on officials of the postal service. As -to “confiscation,” it will be gathered from an earlier page that I -favour generous compensation to actual holders of land or mines, but -no perpetual pensions. -</p> - -<p> -I do not anticipate from this change all the advantages which some -Socialist writers expect. Their schemes of high universal prosperity -seem to me to have an absurdly slender basis of actual work. Mr. -William Morris conjectured that if all of us were to work for four -hours a day there would be enough produced for all of us to live in -luxury; whereas Mr. Sidney Webb calculates that it would need six -hours’ work a day, on the part of all, to produce the necessaries of -life. It is true that a very large body of middlemen, commercial -travellers, footmen and other servants, and duplicate workers in rival -industries would be set free for sound productive or distributive or -professional work; but the easing of the hours of our actual workers, -the removal of the young from the market, and other collateral -improvements, must be taken into account. If we take one hour a day -from the actual workers in our heavier industries, we absorb at once -more than a million new men without increasing production. In any -case, it is lamentable to dangle before the eyes of men the ideal of -working only four hours a day. We want more of Browning’s gospel of -work with cheerfulness. No doubt the idea is that, if the hours of -labour are reduced, the leisure will be employed in reading Bergson -and mastering Brahms. This optimistic theory seems to be at variance -with our experience. Improvement of financial position more usually -means the substitution of Bass or Dewar for cheap ale, and of stalls -for the gallery at the variety theatre. A later chapter will, however, -discuss our interests in this connection. -</p> - -<p> -The fact remains that collectivism is the only remedy of poverty. The -redistribution of wealth, or the prevention of excessive wealth, -would, in my view, add comparatively little to the wages of the -millions; and we must not put to the credit of an economic scheme the -profit of such changes as disarmament. It is not this, but the note of -efficiency, organisation, and economy which appeals to me in the -Socialist ideal. It would abolish a vast amount of duplicate and -unnecessary work, and it would conduct to their proper place in the -industrial order the large army of casual workers. London or New York -is a colossal monument of industrial inefficiency. Our chaotic mass of -duplicate and triplicate rival grocers, bakers, butchers, etc., our -rival railways and other purveyors and producers, with their separate -staffs and their appalling waste in advertisement, are a reproach to -our intelligence. We want an orderly and economical system both of -production and distribution, and only the municipality (or else a vast -and tyrannical trust) can conduct it. Most of all we want a power that -will sweep the myriads of costers, hawkers, newspaper-youths, -flower-girls, casual porters, loafers, musicians, etc., off our -streets, and put them to productive work. We want a great curtailment -of certain luxury-industries and fictitious industries. This would -give us an immensely increased volume of productive work, and a great -saving in distribution. The middle-class has not less to gain than the -workers by such a scheme of organising our resources, and it offers us -the only confident prospect of abolishing poverty and crime and -gradually uplifting the mass of the people. -</p> - -<p> -Naturally, we should for a long time have to deal with a great deal of -refractory material. Idleness and crime are diseases, and they ought -to be treated by the methods of modern medicine: scientific, humane, -sometimes surgical. Certainly we would exercise “tyranny” in -dealing with these. Probably in a properly ordered society all -citizens would be enrolled in an industrial register. The -hyper-sensitive would have the same guarantee of privacy as under our -income-tax system, and the police would have a most effective means of -locating the criminal. Any who were permanently refractory, or showed -an incurable disposition to revert to crime or to the vagrant -industries which disgrace our cities to-day, would have no moral right -to burden us with their existence. The community would offer work and -sufficient wage to all. The rest might disappear into segregated -“homes of idleness,” or, if we are as wise as we ought to be, into -lethal chambers. -</p> - -<p> -This incurably refractory group would, however, probably prove smaller -than many believe. We are at present a little too much inclined to -consult scientific theorists about heredity (which is still very -obscure in science) and too little inclined to make social -experiments. I am assuming that a dozen other reforms would proceed -simultaneously with the reform of industry. Education would no longer -confine itself to giving an elementary literacy to children, without -any further care what use they make of their literacy; it would, as I -will suggest later, seriously concern itself with the adult -population. A bolder treatment of the housing question would stimulate -those who have evil traditions; we should not confine ourselves to -building clean rooms for them, which they might make filthy if they -wished. Prudential restriction of the birth-rate would be impressed on -the poorer class, with great benefit to themselves and their children -and the State. Eugenic proposals might be practically formulated and -encouraged. We should not expect industrial betterment to have some -mystic or magical effect of itself in uplifting the mass of the -people; but, until this betterment occurs, other efforts to help them -will be seriously hampered or entirely futile. The very magnitude of -the task would prove a magnificent tonic and stimulation to the jaded -mind of the community. -</p> - -<p> -An increasing number of middle-class men and women now recognise that -this is, not merely the only solution of the problem of poverty, but -the most profitable scheme of national life for all who are willing to -work. So detached an observer as Mr. Carveth Read, professor of -Philosophy at London University, observes that “probably the future -lies either with Co-operation or with Socialism” (<i>Natural and -Social Morals</i>, p. 211). On the Continent, especially in Italy, -France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and Russia, there is a -high proportion of cultivated and professional men in the Socialist -movement. No one need fear its advance except the idler and the man -whose work does not add to the wealth of the community or facilitate -its distribution. It is the application of sound and tried -business-principles to national life; and, when those principles have -first been applied to the governmental machine, and made it an -effective and disinterested administration, we shall move more quickly -toward the Collectivist ideal. -</p> - -<p> -Some may wonder that a student of science should come to this -conclusion. There is a vague idea abroad that an individualist -struggle for existence and survival of the fittest is the supreme and -unalterable law of life. This idea, though encouraged by men like Mr. -Kidd, is due to a merely superficial acquaintance with biology. In -past ages nature has certainly evolved higher types mainly by a bloody -struggle of individuals or a very calamitous pressure of environment. -<i>In the past</i>: there is the limit of the teaching of biology. A new -thing—human intelligence—has now entered the life of the earth, and -it has in countless ways superseded the laws (that is to say, -practices) of unconscious nature. The human mind is now a part of -nature, and therefore “natural selection” is a wholly different -matter from what it once was. Maurice Maeterlinck has suggested this -with his usual felicity. He imagines himself on a hill, from which he -sees two watercourses stretching toward the sea. One meanders over the -plains, wasting time and space, blindly finding its way over the -uneven ground: that is the old, unintelligent method of nature. The -other waterway stretches straight across the landscape, a canal cut by -man in the course of a few years, with no waste of ground: it is the -new, intelligent method of nature. By this method we now create new -species of plants in a thousandfold less time than natural selection -(in the usual sense) could do; and we do it precisely by dispensing -with the individualist struggle, by intelligent arrangement and -control. -</p> - -<p> -Early science set up unintelligent nature as a grand model for man. It -is time we outgrew this phase of infancy. Intelligence must -increasingly count in the life of the earth. We first organise a -nation, and presently we shall organise international life. We -organise particular businesses, and presently we shall organise the -whole industrial life of the planet. There is no part of human life -which calls more urgently for the application of intelligence than -this disordered, wasteful, pitiless, poverty-saturated industrial -world of ours. Let us treat human beings at least as intelligently as -we treat our flowers, and as humanely as we treat our horses. We do -not entrust those to the tragedy of struggle and survival. We need not -fear that there will be any restriction of the development of -personality. Under such a Collectivist system as I have in mind, -personality will be developed until every man and woman is conscious -of his or her share in the control of the destinies of this planet, -and the sheep-like respect for ancient traditions and abuses, which -impedes our progress to-day, will be for ever abolished. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch06"> -CHAPTER VI.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">IDOLS OF THE HOME</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">Among</span> the claims of reconstruction which the insurgent literature of -our time puts forward, none, perhaps, so startles and inflames the -Conservative as the demand for a reform of the family. Criticism of -this institution is, in fact, so severely punished or so slanderously -misrepresented that it is usually exercised in the more or less -impersonal form of the drama or novel. It happens, however, that the -drama or the novel is now quite the most effective means of -inoculating millions with critical ideas, and at least half the more -brilliant novelists and dramatists of Europe employ their art for this -purpose, or reflect some such sentiments in their work. Hence the -outcry about the “unclean novel”: which is usually far cleaner -than the Old Testament, but more critical. Positivism had assured us -that this institution would be transferred intact to a human -foundation, and Murillo’s “Holy Family” hung reverently over the -hearths of the new pagans. Now, half in fear and half in exultation, -the clergy cry that humanism has betrayed its moral poison and its -social menace. -</p> - -<p> -Our favourite phrase here is the saying that the family is the -foundation of the State. If one patiently considered the matter, one -would discover that the divine right of kings was once regarded with -equal confidence as the indispensable foundation of the State. It may -very well be that the divine duty of the family is no less open to -reconsideration. It might be noticed that the change from aristocracy -to democracy was at one time hailed with lurid prophecy even by -distinguished moralists and sociologists, yet this change has led to -greater efficiency and prosperity. We might perceive that the -Christian dogmas were once thought vital to our welfare, and it may be -that the Christian ethic is in some points as disputable as the -Christian dogmas. Few reflect on these matters, and the writer who -criticises the family is denounced with peculiar bitterness. Quite -certainly that tomb of dead civilisations yawns ominously before us if -we lend ear to this kind of rebel. The family is so plainly -indispensable an institution that it must be protected from criticism: -lest we be tempted to dispense with it. -</p> - -<p> -I propose, however, to make a critical study of the family. Indeed, I -venture to say at once that our ideal of the family is so encrusted -with ancient superstitions that it pressingly invites the critical -attention of our age: that the family is the foundation of the State -only in an historical sense, not in the sense that a State cannot be -based on any other procreative arrangement: and that the cloak of -superstition and rhetoric that we have put about it has covered for -ages, and still covers, an appalling amount of vice, hypocrisy, and -misery. My point of view has been stated. The affairs of this planet -must be run by men for men. The supreme aim must be to lighten the -burden of suffering which we inherit from a less intelligent and less -humane past. Any creed, code, or institution which forbids progress on -these lines must be assailed. -</p> - -<p> -The first and most damnable superstition in regard to the family is -the claim that marriage ought to be indissoluble. In its strict form -this belief is held only by Roman Catholics, and by a section of the -Church of England which was only partially reformed in the sixteenth -century and has a strange ambition to disavow even that limited -reform. But the most insidious mischief of this old ideal is that it -has embedded deep in our minds the feeling that, although indissoluble -marriage is an intolerable yoke, we must be very chary and niggardly -in granting relief. This feeling we ascribe to a wise concern for our -social welfare, whereas it is due to the subconscious tyranny of the -old superstition. Recently we have seen the strange spectacle of a -non-Christian moralist standing amongst our bishops to bar the way of -reform: seeking to prolong, in the name of humanity, a superstition -that darkens the homes of a large part of humanity. The bishops may -have smiled. -</p> - -<p> -A distinguished sociological writer, Mr. L. Hobhouse, in classifying -forms of marriage, says, with unconscious humour: “Marriage is -indissoluble among the Andamanese, some Papuans of New Guinea, at -Watubela, at Lampong in Sumatra, among the Igorrotes and Italones of -the Philippines, the Veddahs of Ceylon, and in the Romish Church.” -One trusts that the Roman (and Anglican) Catholics like the company -they keep; the peoples enumerated by Mr. Hobhouse are the very lowest -and least intelligent savages known to science. The Church of Rome has -long boasted that its ideal of indissoluble union is the final and -culminating point of human wisdom in regard to the family. It now -appears that indissoluble marriage was the most primitive human -tradition, and was discarded by the Roman and all other civilisations -when they passed from childhood to manhood. -</p> - -<p> -Sociologists have been accustomed to say that monogamy was gradually -developed out of promiscuity. This was mere speculation, and Professor -Westermarck and other recent authorities rightly dissent. The -institution is older than humanity. We find monogamic family life -among the anthropoid apes and amongst the lowest peoples, which -represent early man; and many writers on prehistoric man now contend -that we find him passing from family to social life, not in the -reverse way. When the last Ice Age forced men to live in caves, and -the scattered families clung together and formed large social groups, -the family life was modified, and few of the higher tribes maintained -the primitive form. Réclus tells of a Khond who, on hearing of the -monogamous life of the wild Veddahs of Ceylon, exclaimed in disgust: -“They live like the apes.” -</p> - -<p> -We may assume that little hardship arises from incompatibility of -temperament among the Igorrotes or the Veddahs, and there is no need -to describe the eccentric forms of marriage which arose among higher -savages. None of the great civilisations of the past entertained the -idea of indissoluble marriage. The clergy, of course, know nothing of -the real line of evolution, and (as Bishop Diggle has done) they -represent the Roman system as a comparative refinement of early -promiscuity, on which Christianity was to make the final advance. The -precious testimony of Juvenal is invoked (against the warning of all -modern historians): and we are expected to shudder because St. Jerome -tells us of a Roman lady who had been married a score of times. It is -not stated what harm was done to the lady, or to anybody else, or -whether she was a freak in her generation. It is enough, as Mrs. -Humphry Ward knows, to say that divorce is frequent anywhere, and -thousands of hands will rise to heaven: what the precise social -consequences are the thousand of heads seem to regard as irrelevant. -</p> - -<p> -I have read most of the literature of the Roman Imperial period, and -have found that the greater part of the statements made about it by -clerical moralists are rubbish. Every serious student knows that it -was precisely the more rigid and intolerable earlier form of Roman -marriage (the <i>confarreatio</i>) which led to laxity in the early Empire; -that the Roman Lawyers of the first and second centuries, who relaxed -marriage, were among the most conscientious that the legal world has -ever produced; and that in the time of St. Jerome—an embittered and -intensely puritanical priest, who says worse things about his -sacerdotal colleagues than he does about the pagans—we have the solid -testimony of such documents as the <i>Letters</i> of Symmachus and the -instructive <i>Saturnalia</i> of Macrobius to show that the family life of -the pagans was generally healthy, sober, and harmonious. There is not -a particle of proof that Roman society suffered because of the -facility of divorce, or generally abused this facility. -</p> - -<p> -But the misrepresentation of Roman morals is light in comparison with -the misrepresentation of later Christian morals. Christianity took its -ideal from the Jews. Amongst this partially civilised people marriage -had been made easy for the male by the retention of polygamy, and it -was not customary to consult the feelings of the woman. In the course -of time Greek influence entered Judæa, and the Rabbis held learned -debates on marriage and divorce. Both the stricter and the laxer view -found expression in the New Testament and in early Christian -literature, but a celibate priesthood obtained supreme power in Europe -and the stricter view was enforced. The moral consequences were -disastrous. While the Roman <i>Curia</i>, which could always find a flaw in -the marriage of a wealthy man, was enriched, Europe was degraded, and -sexual immorality became general. It is enough to recall that a -tradition of looseness, in strict correspondence with the law of -indissoluble marriage, survives from the ages of faith to our own time -in the Latin countries. Some have spoken of “the hot southern -blood” and cast the blame on the climate. I would invite the -informed moralist to run his eye over the map of the earth, and ask -himself whether chastity increases, or the sex-organs lose vitality, -in proportion as nations are removed from the Equator. It is a -ludicrous effort of Catholics to conceal the evils of indissoluble -marriage. Until the Reformation sexual laxity was the same all over -Europe. -</p> - -<p> -In England the old priest-made law was retained after the Reformation, -and laxity of morals was general. Except for a very few wealthy -people, divorce was impossible until 1857, when a slender measure of -reform was wrested from the clergy. This, the present law of England, -a miserable compromise with religious prejudice and a permanent source -of vice and misery, puts English legislation on an important aspect of -“the foundation of the State” below that of any other civilised -community. Instead of ridding themselves entirely of clerical -influence, and directing civic life on civic grounds, our legislators -looked still to ancient Judæa, and substituted the less stringent -view of the Rabbis for the more stringent. The legendary leader of a -rude Arab tribe had granted divorce for adultery, and the English -nation of the nineteenth century followed his example. The result was -the most stupid and mischievous law of marriage outside the sphere of -the Holy Catholic Church. -</p> - -<p> -English people are proud of their national concern for purity, yet -they tolerate, and their priests defend as something sacred, a state -of law which is medieval in its crudeness and barbarity. When two -people have obeyed our counsel to marry early, and they discover that -they have misjudged each other, we tell them that there is no relief -for them unless they commit adultery: which, when it is committed, we -brand as the darkest sin. To the husband we give the further -injunction that he must be cruel to his wife before we will release -him. We then, although we take especial pride in the “cleanness” -of our press and literature, print whole columns about their conduct -in suspicious situations,—sometimes entitling the account, in large -type, to attract attention, “A Horrible Case,”—and we ask each -other whether England is not in a state of decay and contracting the -continental spirit. If there are any who do not choose to commit -adultery, or do not choose to have their servants bribed to describe -their conduct for the entertainment of the public, we grant them a -legal permit to be happy and vicious, or miserable and virtuous, for -the remainder of their lives: the thing we call a judicial separation. -</p> - -<p> -This extraordinary situation is certainly a slight improvement on -indissoluble marriage, but the pride of our bishops and puritans in it -is peculiar. One may not expect them to take into account the -suffering which hundreds of thousands endure under the law, but the -adultery to which it leads would seem to be a proper subject for their -consideration. As a rule, they entreat us to maintain religion, -whether it be true or no, in the name of morality: here they ask us to -maintain immorality in the name of religion,—in the name of a -supposed Christian precept,—and we obey even more readily. When a -Royal Commission recommends that our law be brought into line with the -law of other civilised nations, they burn with indignation and inspire -a Minority Report: a remarkable mixture of contradictions, worthless -quotations, and irrelevant rhetoric. The question of immorality they -shirk; and to the unhappiness which large numbers of our people endure -under the present law they are so insensitive that they hardly mention -it. -</p> - -<p> -Such consequences are to be expected as long as we borrow our social -legislation from an ancient polygamous nation with a great disdain for -women. It is said, however, as usual, that our social interest -coincides with the supposed command of Christ. We have here one of the -most singular confusions of the whole controversy. Marriage is held to -be the foundation of the State, because it is believed to be the -surest way to supply it with citizens. This duty of procreation is, in -fact, the only feature which disposes priests to give their blessing -to so distasteful a thing as sexual union. Yet when a majority of the -Commissioners recommend that people should be free to remarry if the -desertion, cruelty, insanity, or imprisonment of one spouse defrauds -the State of its supply of little citizens, the bishops raise their -crosiers. Even so ascetic and anti-feminist a divine as St. Augustine -could not deny that a man had a right to take a concubine when his -wife proved sterile. Our divines speak much more fervently than St. -Augustine did of our social interest, yet they forbid us to consult -it. -</p> - -<p> -In sum, we have generally rejected the view that marriage ought to be -indissoluble, and we pride ourselves on curbing the influence of -priests; but our whole attitude toward divorce is shaped by the old -superstition and the clergy. In the name of that superstition we -condemn large numbers of our fellow-citizens to live in deep and acute -misery. Which of our social interests would be prejudiced by granting -relief to the man or woman whose life is embittered by the desertion, -incurable insanity, cruelty, or criminal conduct of his or her -partner? The suggestion is preposterous; and, if we do not grant this -relief, adultery is in their case a venial offence, if not a right. -</p> - -<p> -Some explain that they fear “the thin edge of the wedge.” As if -wedges had a way of pressing deeper by their own weight, once we have -admitted them! If England chooses to grant these reforms, and no -others, she need not be deterred by empty phrases. But I believe that -the alert and resolute race which is coming will go much further than -this. Before many generations, if not in ours, there will be divorce -for incompatibility of temperament in every civilised country. Men and -women will be divorced, after due delay, because they wish, or when -one of them can show grave cause to separate from the other. -Ill-informed people express a concern about the children or the social -consequences. They do not take the trouble to inquire what happens in -some of the American States, or in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and -Switzerland, where there is long and ample experience of divorce by -mutual consent. The social consequences are just what any unprejudiced -person would expect: happier homes, and more healthily engendered and -reared children. But the puritan does not want to inquire: he is not -sincere. Would he agree to divorce by mutual consent where there are -no children or where either or both parents make adequate provision -for them? He would not. I will, however, return later to the question -of children. -</p> - -<p> -Europe will be far happier when some such humane law as the Danish is -generally adopted, and, after a few years’ separation, the -discontented are free to remarry. But no one who is acquainted with -the tendency and influence of modern literature can fancy that this -will be the last state of the old ideal of the family. From the first -years when men were free to declare their opinions without fear of the -stake, writers of great power have claimed the right of what has come -to be called “free love.” Some would abolish marriage, but the -normal shape of the demand is that men and women shall be free to love -and beget children whether or no they ask the blessing of Church or -State. By the latter part of the eighteenth century, when Goethe took -a concubine on the pagan model, many of the first literary men in -Europe pressed this demand, and it is sustained by some of the most -brilliant writers in every country to-day. The movement exhibits the -slow and steady growth characteristic of reforms which eventually -triumph. It is no mere bubble on the surface of our effervescent life; -it is the new intelligence of the race examining the old traditions. -</p> - -<p> -Moralists, lay and clerical, have a preposterous way of representing -this as a surging of selfish passion against the barriers which human -experience or superhuman wisdom has erected. There is, it is true, -much in our rebellious literature itself which misrepresents the -movement. You get the impression that, as the eighteenth century -questioned the divine right of kings and the nineteenth century that -of priests, the twentieth century is challenging the divine right of -moralists. But this is due to the common practice of giving a narrow -meaning to the word “immorality.” Goethe and Swinburne became -zealous for “morality,” but they never altered their opinions on -“free love.” Sudermann and Anatole France and Pérez Galdós and -d’Annunzio, G. B. Shaw and T. Hardy and E. Carpenter and H. G. -Wells, are sincere moralists: they inculcate honour, truthfulness, -kindliness, and justice as firmly as our bishops, and more effectively -than most of our clergy. It is not morality that stands at the bar. -The real question is whether any sound moral principle implies that -marriage alone sanctions sex-union: whether social good or social evil -would result from an alteration of our standards. -</p> - -<p> -This is a quite natural and legitimate question, and any -healthy-minded person ought to be able to discuss it without hysteria -or vituperation. Christian moralists have made some very grave -mistakes during the last thousand years. Humility and disdain of the -flesh were for centuries extolled by them as the supreme virtues: -cruelty was classified as a venial offence. Already the bulk of our -divines reject the virtue of asceticism, and they forbear to press on -the modern world the kind of humility which turns the other cheek, or -the other pocket, to the hooligan. They discover that social justice -has been singularly neglected by their predecessors, and they begin to -suspect that war or sweating may be worse than unbelief or -Sabbath-breaking. It is not at all unnatural to inquire whether there -may not also be some element of error in their sex-ethic. -</p> - -<p> -We do not go far in such an inquiry before our suspicion is confirmed. -The evolution of the virtue of chastity may some day be traced by a -cold scientific investigator, and in its earlier stages it will prove -extremely interesting. It is primarily connected with an ancient -superstition or “tabu” in regard to sex-life: the kind of -primitive and unreasoning feeling which once drove women to the -temples of Ishtar in parts of the East, and still survives, baldly and -ludicrously, in the “purification” process to which a recent -mother must submit in the Roman and Anglican Churches. This old idea -that there was something “unclean” or mysterious about sex-life, -was more or less discarded when men passed out of the barbaric stage, -but it quite evidently survived in part in the virtue of purity. A man -or woman, it was thought, had a certain mystic superiority if he or -she did not use the organs of sex. Hence the widespread veneration of -Vestal Virgins, Pythagorean and Serapean recluses, priestesses of -Isis, Aztec and Christian nuns. I call attention particularly to the -notion that these celibates were in some sense superior to their -fellows, because it shows clearly the connection with the older idea -of a mystic uncleanness about sex. There is, of course, no rational -ground for this superstition, though even philosophers have -entertained it. There is a large and elegant literature about it, from -the <i>Enneads</i> of Plotinus to Bulwer Lytton’s <i>Zanoni</i> or the works -of Miss Corelli. -</p> - -<p> -Most of us see quite clearly the barbaric strain lingering in this -admiration of virginity, but we do not perceive how far our virtue of -purity is a compromise with this ancient superstition. I mean that, -together with sound elements which I will discuss presently, the -sentiment of purity or chastity retained a good deal of the old -irrational view of sex. Luther boldly attacked the theoretical -asceticism of the medieval Church, but in the end Protestantism -compromised with the old tradition. This again is quite plainly seen -when we reflect on the way in which Church people, and many of our -modern mystics and feminists, breathe the word “lust.” It means -merely pleasure in sexual intercourse, but it has to be mentioned as -rarely as possible, and with downcast eyes and an air of very distinct -disapproval. The impression is conveyed that it is a thing invented by -the devil, but reluctantly permitted by the Almighty because the race -had to be maintained. The blessing of the Church made it a barely -permissible luxury. We have only to reflect that “lust” does not -mean unwedded love, but sexual pleasure or desire under any -conditions, to recognise the trail of the old tabu over the whole -range of these sentiments. -</p> - -<p> -In the nineteenth century the evolution of morals took a strange turn. -Neither clergy nor laity had before that time, speaking generally, -observed chastity in practice, but the rise of non-Christian critics -in the eighteenth century had compelled the clergy to be more faithful -to their own precepts. This (and the growth of such movements as -Wesleyanism) led to more concern about virtue, and when the English -Agnostic school arose its leaders were taunted by the clergy with a -wish to rationalise or alter morality. By a natural reaction they -cultivated a particular zeal for virtue, and accepted the old code in -its entirety. Those moralists who appealed to a “categorical -imperative” or an “intuition” had no difficulty in doing this. -Indeed, any man who to-day accepts the Stoic idea of morality, or the -æsthetic idea (that virtue is so beautiful that we must cultivate -it), has as much right as the Christian to profess a regard for -chastity. There ensued a kind of rivalry of virtue between the clergy -and the new pagans. It has ended in the curious spectacle of our -modern clergy, whose historical knowledge is both slender and -peculiar, claiming that their Churches are the most faithful preachers -of purity the world has ever known, while Agnostic moralists -indignantly dispute their supposed monopoly. -</p> - -<p> -The extreme complexity of this evolution, and the fact that few of us -reflect critically at all on our moral sentiments, must excuse me for -making this lengthy analysis. It shows that our conception of chastity -still contains a large amount of the old non-rational tradition, and -that any man or woman who declines (as so many do to-day) to bow to -mystic and obscure commands has a right to examine it closely. In one -of my works (<i>Life of G. J. Holyoake</i>, ii. 65) I have shown that so -sensitive a moralist as J. S. Mill admitted this. Obviously, the -precept of purity or chastity has a totally different basis from all -the other recognised moral precepts. These others are invariably -social laws, and the transgression of them is invariably a social -hurt. Life itself furnishes the reply if a man asks why he <i>ought</i> to -be just, kind, and truthful: the answer is not so obvious when he asks -why he <i>ought</i> to be chaste. -</p> - -<p> -This will become very much clearer if we examine our resentment of -“immoral” actions. In the majority of cases we condemn them on -moral principles quite apart from chastity. Europe has in this respect -been lamentably misled by its professional moralists, and we can -hardly be surprised that in practice it so largely ignored them. It is -quite plain that a man or woman who has married on the usual -terms—mutual fidelity—and they remain unaltered, is bound by honour -and justice to observe the contract. Adultery is in such a case (the -usual case) condemned by moral principles which have a very much -clearer basis than chastity. Again, justice sternly forbids a man to -inflict, or run the risk of inflicting, grave injury on a woman by -causing her to have a child in a social order which will heavily -punish her for doing so. Here also there is a firm reason, apart from -chastity, for moral resentment. When we eliminate these other moral -sentiments from our condemnation of immoral acts, there is certainly -no <i>social</i> ground of resentment left; and, as I said, I am not -arguing against a Stoic or æsthetic or theological view. Socially, it -would be an enormous improvement if we kept this analysis in mind. If -moralists talked less about “vice,” which has an academic sound, -and more about “crime” and honour, there would be less suffering -in the world. The experience of two thousand years has not commended -the Church’s practice of denouncing vice when it ought to have -appealed to a man’s sense of honour or justice. It put the accent on -the wrong syllable. Many a man will shrink from an act which is -unjust, or may involve cruelty, if he is accustomed to regard it as -such. He is not so effectively intimidated by terms like virtue and -vice, which require a whole moral philosophy or theology to invalidate -them. -</p> - -<p> -But I am not for a moment contending that this removal of the accent -from one syllable to another leaves the law as it was. It is, on the -contrary, the very essence of my contention that the law must, in the -real interest of men and women, be altered and that a large amount of -ethical tyranny, which has no justification, must be abandoned. Let me -first put, with entire candour, what seems to me to be the only -rational reconstruction of sex-morality on a social basis, and then we -may regard the reasons for advocating it. -</p> - -<p> -It is, as I said, clear that if a man or woman marries on a strict -monogamous contract, and holds his or her partner to that contract, -there is a plain obligation of justice to adhere to it. If, on the -other hand, a man and woman choose to marry on any other -understanding, or choose to grant each other (as is now frequently -done) a greater liberty than the contract implies, their behaviour is -entirely their own concern, and no moralist who takes his stand on -purely social grounds has anything to say to it. In regard to -unmarried intercourse, it is further plain that a man commits an -immoral or anti-social act who entails on an unmarried woman the grave -injury which child-bearing does entail in our social order generally. -It must, however, be recognised that guilt is in this case entirely -relative to circumstances. Where public opinion does not make a pariah -of such a woman, where no risk of suffering is involved, such an act -of “free love” is no concern of the social moralist. Hence, if two -people of mature intelligence, making a just provision for possible -children, choose to live together without marriage, it is entirely -their own concern; and if any woman, strong and judicious enough to -take the responsibility of her acts, chooses love without marriage, it -is her own concern. -</p> - -<p> -If there seems to be an unfamiliar coldness and deliberation about -this defence of “licence,” it is enough to recall the familiar -circumstances. One cannot, as a rule, inquire dispassionately into -this subject without raising an hysterical storm. The clergy and other -puritans accuse a man of the basest and most selfish motives; they -seem, indeed, so incapable of understanding that a man may plead for -this moral reconstruction on motives at least as unselfish and -elevated as their own that their obtuseness does little credit to -their own moral physiognomy. They make fanatical appeals to -undiscriminating prejudice, repeat silly phrases about “passion” -and “farmyard morals,” and rely on intimidation. The consequence -is, that ordinary folk openly bow to their rhetoric and secretly -ignore it. Any properly observant person can find out in a week to -what extent London observes the virtue of purity. It is then left to -rebellious poets and novelists and other artists to make fiery -onslaughts on the tyranny: to speak of virtue as “the ash of a -burnt-out fire,” to chant “the roses and raptures of vice,” or -to say scornfully with Blake: -</p> - -<div class="quote_o"><div class="quote_i"> -<span class="i0">“And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,</span> -<span class="i0">And binding with briars my joys and desires.”</span> -</div></div> - -<p> -Therefore I have chosen to apply to the issue the cold deductive -processes with which experience as a professor of moral philosophy has -made me familiar. As I said, the Christian is free to observe his -supposed divine command, the Stoic may bow to a mystic and inscrutable -law, the moral æsthete may enthuse over the charm of virtue; but I -maintain that the sociological or utilitarian view of morals, which is -now generally accepted by the vast number of people who have ceased to -be Christian, cannot control sex-relations in any other sense than -this. A man must avoid injustice and hardship: a woman must use her -discretion. Indeed, as the clergy and the puritans now take their -stand commonly on social grounds, these social considerations are -effective against them. -</p> - -<p> -But the question is not merely academic. These cold and severe -deductions are very properly opposed to the heated phraseology and -sentimentality of Conservatives, who profess to be concerned about our -social welfare, but I am really pleading for the greater happiness of -the race, the lessening of hypocrisy, the curtailment of a system of -prostitution which makes the lives of so many women end in horror. -With all their talk about our “social welfare,” the clergy and -their puritan supporters are in this respect the gravest disturbers -and restricters of our social welfare; and the insolence with which -they assail every attempt at reform is ludicrous in view of their own -record and gravely prejudicial to the advance of human happiness. It -is not a question of abolishing marriage, or of interfering with the -liberty of any. At one moment the clergy represent marriage as so -beneficent, so solidly established in the hearts of our people, that -only a morbid sensualist ever assails it; and the next moment they -suggest, in effect, that if we relax our coercion, people will abandon -marriage in such numbers that the social order will be overwhelmed. -Let us have sincerity and liberty. -</p> - -<p> -But neither is it a question of spreading a gospel of “free love,” -in the perverse sense in which the clergy conceive such a gospel. The -considerations I have given above should make this plain enough. It is -a question of securing freedom and love for the hundreds of thousands -of mature women who cannot marry, or who do not choose to enter upon -the very precarious experiment of surrendering their privacy and -independence: a question of breaking the tyranny of an old -superstition which, by means of public opinion, forbids so many women -to have the child they desire to have, or the share of happiness from -which they are excluded: a question of putting an end to a vast amount -of needless suffering and privation and hypocrisy. The State would -gain rather than lose by this freedom: it is the Church only that -would suffer. Thousands of women already hold these views, as the open -circulation of the <i>Freewoman</i> (a few years ago) and of our bolder -novelists shows. The feeling gains ground yearly, and the time is -approaching when that seal of ignominy which our priest-made law puts -on the “illegitimate” child will be removed, and men and women -will cease to speak of “lust.” Sex-pleasure has no more taint than -any other, and the notion that it is justified only as an -accompaniment to the begetting of children, or to lessen the risk of -adultery, is childishly irrational and generally insincere. Laws there -must be: but the laws must be made for men, not men for the laws. It -is time that Europe shook off the conceptions of conduct which were -imposed on it by impotent monks like Gregory VII., and framed its own -rules in accordance with the new and healthier attitude toward life. -Asceticism is a commercial speculation—the sacrifice of earth for a -double share of heaven—which we have no longer reason to appreciate. -</p> - -<p> -The progress of this view will be assisted by two contemporary reforms -of received opinion. One regards the economic dependence of woman on -man, which I will discuss later. I need only recall here that some of -the worst evils of our marriage-system—the scheming and bartering and -linking for life—are due to this dependence. The other reform is the -widespread and increasing rejection of the old idea that a woman must -bear as many children as nature will permit her to have. -</p> - -<p> -There is amongst us a disgusting amount of hypocrisy in regard to this -question. The majority of educated people of all classes, even many of -the clergy, now practise artificial limitation of the family, yet we -proceed on the fiction that this is a disreputable practice. We turn -into pornographic dépôts the shops which sell contraceptives, and we -allow an antiquated law to be drastically enforced against men who -would be decent purveyors of the things we use in secret. We have -talked, and read journalistic articles, about “the dwindling -population of France” for twenty years, though it is only within the -last year or so that it has even slightly decreased; and the -birth-rate alone shows that London and Berlin and every other great -city are rapidly approaching the condition of Paris. We listen without -protest to the lamentations of half-informed faddists on the -limitation of the birth-rate in ancient Rome (where the practice was -confined to a few, and proved an excellent means of saving the State -by ridding it of a worn-out nobility) or the medieval republics of -Italy. And while we perpetrate these and a hundred other follies, we -know that the majority of us who are educated and unprejudiced find -the practice humane and commendable. We would, it seems, rather leave -frail girls to the mercy of quacks and dangerous operators than tell -them openly what better-educated ladies do to avoid conception. -</p> - -<p> -Yet we have not here even the excuse of an antique religious command. -The Catholic Church, it is true, severely condemns the use of -contraceptives, but one finds that its prohibition is based merely on -the reasoning of medieval celibates. With those who argue that the -practice is “against nature” one hardly needs to discuss. Half the -distinctive things of civilisation are “against nature,” nor is -there any reason why we should not depart from the ways of that -ancient and unintelligent dame. Hardly less foolish is the alarm about -our dwindling birth-rate. With every industry and profession already -much overcrowded, we do not act very intelligently in censuring the -modern restriction of production. But these are, to a great extent, -either wholly insincere expressions or confused repetitions of ancient -prejudices. In France, where a society arose for the checking of the -practice, it was found that the members had an average of one child -and a half in each family. A similar census among the writers and -associations which attack Malthusianism in England might yield an -instructive result. -</p> - -<p> -One can understand the hostility to Malthusianism—or, rather, -Neo-Malthusianism, since Malthus’s idea of restricting population by -avoiding intercourse is unnecessarily heroic—in a country like -Australia, which urgently requires population; though even in -Australia the opposition is futile. One can understand such hostility -in a land which has universal conscription, and neighbours with a -superior army; though I have elsewhere pointed out the sensible and -natural way to settle this difficulty. But it is quite irrational in -such a city as London. Five-sixths of us, it has been demonstrated, do -not attend church or take our code of life meekly from the clergy, as -our fathers did; our labour-market is, in every division, enormously -overcrowded; and our army is not affected by the dwindling birth-rate. -Why, in these circumstances, should the women of England be asked to -undergo the pain and sickness and weariness of a yearly birth, and -wear out their lives in the rearing of a large family? Men have, as a -rule, too little appreciation of the terrible burden they lay on their -wives, but their own interest at least ought to weigh with them. Why -be constrained to find the resources for rearing and educating a large -family when a smaller family will give better chances to the children -and conduce to the happiness of the home? -</p> - -<p> -To these questions the only answer is an irrational outpouring of -antique rhetoric. It is mere “lust” to have commerce without -children: it is “selfish” to wish to live in greater comfort by -restricting the family: it is “unnatural.” The man who would -lessen the suffering of his companion in life, and obtain greater -advantages and more loving care for his children by restricting their -number, may smile at the futility of this kind of rhetoric. But it is -surely time, in the second decade of the twentieth century, to meet it -with a frank and curt declaration that we have, and will use, a right -to any pleasure which this life affords, provided it hurt no one. The -last trace of asceticism should be trodden underfoot. The medieval -clergy were a body of a few fanatics leading an army of hypocrites. -Their ideas have no place in our life. Love and joy and comradeship -are in themselves as much ours as the scent of the rose or the flavour -of wine. It is time that we echoed defiantly the sneering words of the -apostle, and said: Yes, <i>let</i> us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. -We are not likely to forget that life has other pleasures, of culture -and art, besides those of the palate or of love. The supreme -commandment is, as old Egypt said: “Thou shalt make no man weep.” -The supreme virtue is to quicken the hearts of men with joy and fill -their minds with truth. And the time will come when the clergy, -reading aright for the first time the life of the ages of faith, will -say: “We never insisted on our theoretical asceticism until those -dour sceptics of the nineteenth century compelled us: the Middle Ages -were the ages of liberty.” -</p> - -<p> -The clergy are, in fact, in a dilemma. The cry of the hour is -“social consequences.” There is a vast amount of doleful recalling -of dead civilisations and prediction of coming woe; though England was -never before so prosperous, solid, and free from crime. But dogmas -have worn so thin that we must be pressed to maintain them, even if -they are false, on social grounds. The answer is quite simple. If any -social quality or rule of conduct is necessary for our welfare and -happiness in this world, we need no dogmatic foundation for it. Men -will see that virtue is its own reward. And if any rule of conduct in -the Christian code is <i>not</i> based upon the actual exigencies of life, -there will be no social consequences if we disregard it. The -superstitions I have assailed belong to this latter category. -</p> - -<p> -But a campaign against the artificial restriction of the birth-rate -has recently been inaugurated on what are thought to be serious social -grounds, and this leads me to a third and last reform which the family -will undergo. I refer to the Eugenic movement. Let me first explain -why this hostility of Eugenists to the restriction of the birth-rate -seems a needless and illogical complication of their aims. -</p> - -<p> -This hostility is usually expressed in the form of a fear that the -restriction of births among the “better class” and unrestricted -increase of the “lower class” must lead to deterioration. One -would think that the proper remedy of this would be to recommend -prudential restriction to the mass of the workers, as the Malthusian -League endeavours to do. It is a strange social idealism which would -urge over-production all round, with its train of domestic and -industrial evils, instead of urging restriction all round. It would -also be interesting to learn the average number of children to a -family among these zealous Eugenists, and whether they do not find -middle-class professions as overcrowded as the manual industries are. -At all events, since it is now impossible to induce educated mothers -to return to the virtuous and exacting industry of their Victorian -predecessors, the best thing would be to educate the masses in a -common-sense view of maternity and of their own interest. -</p> - -<p> -It will suffice here, however, to deal with the saner side of the -Eugenic movement. It proposes to eliminate bad human stock and promote -the mating of good stocks. These are those who find it a degradation -to introduce “the methods of the breeder” into human affairs, but -the objection is merely silly. The methods of the modern breeder are -an expression of intelligence, improving on nature; these -old-fashioned folk would have us disregard the persuasion of -intelligence and retain the crude methods of unintelligent nature. The -serious question is: Is the Eugenic proposal sound and practicable? -</p> - -<p> -As far as positive Eugenics, or the selection of good human stocks for -breeding, is concerned, the recent evolution of the movement seems to -show that no firm and practicable proposal can yet be formulated. The -truth is that the movement is greatly enfeebled by a general reliance -on disputed theories of heredity. Some Eugenists rely on Weismann’s -theory: some on the Mendelist theory. They do not realise that -scientific men are by no means agreed upon these theories, and it is a -serious mistake to build on either. In England most of our biologists -are Weismannists (in a broad sense), but there is more hostility to -the theory in Germany and the United States, and both theories have -lately had to confront grave difficulties. Any Eugenic proposal which -is based on a theory of heredity must be regarded with reserve. The -dogmatic statements of Professor Karl Pearson, for instance, in regard -to the impossibility of altering by education the innate qualities of -a child are entirely unwarranted. Heredity is still a mystery: and the -relative importance of heredity and environment (or nature and -nurture) is not yet determined. -</p> - -<p> -Detaching the element of theory, we have a plain proposal to eradicate -tainted stocks from the human garden and promote the growth of the -sounder. As I have said, the positive proposal to breed has not yet -been put before us in a practicable or discussable form. This is -largely because Eugenists fear to alarm the public by pointing out how -it affects the position of marriage. There are, however, many other -difficulties. The extraordinary diversity among children of the same -parents warns us that we cannot count on the result of mating human -beings, with their infinitely more complex nervous systems, as we can -count on the issue of mating sheep or dogs. The mediocrity of the -living children of our ablest men of the last generation, even when -the mother was an excellent mate, is another circumstance to be -considered. We do not yet know the points to breed for, and there is -no constancy of result. Eugenists sometimes refer to the physical or -mental superiority of one class of children over another, but in this -they do not attempt to distinguish between the effect of environment -and the natural endowment. Positive Eugenics is not yet beyond the -stage of research. Such research, if conducted without academic -prejudice (which is too apparent in many Eugenic papers), is of very -great service; and, if ever a firm proposal lies before us, we may -trust that rhetorical phrases and clerical prejudices will not be -allowed to bar the way. -</p> - -<p> -In the case of negative Eugenics we are nearer agreement. Here again, -however, research is not always candid. Inquiries have been made into -the lineage of American criminals, and the large percentage of -criminals in one family is held to indicate a tainted stock: it is not -sufficiently noticed that they all lived in the same crime-breeding -environment. Other Eugenists try to intimidate us with the cry that -lunacy and crime are increasing rapidly: whereas (as I showed in the -<i>Hibbert Journal</i>, April 1912) there is no proved increase of lunacy -and no increase of crime, in proportion to the growth of population. -These methods bring discredit on the Eugenic proposals. It is, -however, now agreed that certain diseases, including certain forms of -mental disease, are transmissible, and common-sense suggests that we -should prevent their transmission. It is well to bear in mind, -however, that these things affect only a fraction of the community. As -is the case with every new social proposal, Eugenics is being pressed -as a panacea; and it appeals to many as a fascinating method of -healing our social maladies without touching the present distribution -of wealth. It is one subsidiary remedy among the hundred which modern -civilisation needs to apply. By all means let us discover what -“tainted stocks,” if any, there are amongst us; and let us have -the elementary courage and intelligence to extinguish them, by the -isolation, painless destruction, or sterilisation of their -representatives. -</p> - -<p> -The future of the family seems not obscure. Malthusian and Eugenic -proposals will alter much of the crudeness and stupidity of the old -family ideal, and ease of divorce will remove the blight it has put on -many a home. Hundreds of thousands bless marriage with gratitude and -sincerity: tens of thousands curse it with equal sincerity. Let there -be liberty and life for all. For a modern legislature to ignore a vast -amount of vice and misery, and be guided by the ancient formula of a -celibate priesthood, is one of the most lamentable features of our -civilisation. And the unbiased social student may look without concern -on the growth of extra-matrimonial love. There is no interest of the -State which forbids it, nor any sound principle of morals. The woman -of the future will be her own mistress, responsible neither to priest -nor moralist in this respect. If she chooses, she will marry; but she -will not sacrifice half the joy of life because she cannot, or does -not choose to, venture upon the experiment of domestic intimacy. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch07"> -CHAPTER VII.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">THE FUTURE OF WOMAN</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">The</span> old tradition of the family is intimately connected with the old -ideal of womanhood, and this in turn is summoned to the bar of modern -criticism. A substantial change in the position of woman seems so -revolutionary a disturbance, since it directly affects half the race -and must very seriously affect the home and the State, that our -Conservatives employ against the proposal the whole arsenal of -controversial rhetoric. We hear of the wisdom of the race—as if the -race did not grow wiser as it grows older—and the thin end of the -wedge. We are reminded that the ancient civilisations always came to -an end when their women rebelled against their natural position. We -have private appeals to our sensuous feelings and our instincts of -proprietorship, and open appeals to the ascetic doctrine of the -Pauline Epistles. We have history put before us, as usual, in chosen -fragments, and on the strength of these detached bits of learning we -hear impressive sermons on the “laws” of history and of nature. -</p> - -<p> -The appeal to history, which men like Dr. Emil Reich have so gravely -abused, is in this case singularly unfortunate. In most cases the -candid student of history finds some ancient abuse or irrational -tradition making its way from one civilisation to another, and finds -it natural that our more critical and independent generation should at -length seek to dethrone it. But in the case of woman the Conservative -has not even “the wisdom of the race” to appeal to. Her position -in the past has varied greatly, but it is very far from true that she -had always occupied that state of subjection in which our Victorian -reformers found her. I have elsewhere (<i>Woman in Political Evolution</i>) -surveyed the full story of woman’s development, and will here be -content with a summary view which makes the Feminist movement of our -time intelligible. -</p> - -<p> -During the greater part of the history of civilisation, in the -Egyptian and Mesopotamian empires, woman had a considerable measure of -freedom and respect. When the Greeks and Romans entered the stage, -they brought with them a different tradition in regard to woman, but -as soon as they reached the height of their cultural development, -their women (and many of their men) rebelled against this tradition. -The civilisation of Greece was extinguished so speedily that the women -of Athens, aided by so eminent a thinker as Plato, had not time to win -their emancipation; but the Roman women did succeed in lifting -themselves from their position of subjection. In the meantime, -however, the political and religious development of Europe led to the -reappearance of the barbaric tradition in a new form. The Christian -leaders had in their sacred documents the social code of a rude -Semitic tribe, the Jews, which was sternly emphasised by St. Paul, and -they brooded darkly over the position of woman. Tertullian fiercely -reminded Christians that, but for woman, the race would never have -been damned. Ambrose ingeniously reflected that Eve was made out of a -mere rib, not out of the brain, of Adam. Augustine regarded woman as -an unpleasant institution created by Providence for the relief of -weak-willed males and for the maintenance of the race. Jerome frowned -heavily on the Roman woman’s claim of emancipation. This quaint -mixture of Jewish contempt and ascetic dread was imposed on Europe by -the triumphant priesthood, educated mainly in the opinions of “the -Fathers,” and woman sank again to a position of inferiority and -subjection. -</p> - -<p> -Women writers of many countries have written this story of the -degradation of their sex in Christian Europe, and one can only admire -the splendid audacity with which Bishop Welldon assures women that -Jesus Christ (who never uttered a protest against the Jewish -conception or a warning against the coming abuse of it) was “the -first to respect them,” or the Bishop of London describes -Christianity as “woman’s best friend,” or Bishop Diggle -represents the Christian as an advance on the Roman attitude. Our -clergy are distinguished for the facility with which they make -historical statements without giving us any serious evidence of a -command of history; they have the advantage of being able to assure -their followers that it is a “sin” to read more accurate and less -orthodox experts. -</p> - -<p> -The historical truth is that the nineteenth century found woman in a -position far lower than that she had occupied at Rome seventeen -centuries before—far lower, indeed, than she had occupied during -(except for two brief periods) the many thousands of years of the -history of civilisation. It was quite inevitable that a movement for -her emancipation and uplifting should find a place among the great -reforms initiated in the last century. To conceive this movement as a -semi-hysterical rebellion against the settled usage of the race is -merely to betray a gross ignorance of history. Recent experience has -taught us that there is a great deal in the settled usage of the race -to rebel against; but it is false that in this case we are doing so. -The undisputed historical truth is that woman had been comparatively -free and respected during the greater part of the civilised period: -that, when the early civilisations of Greece and Rome had placed her -in subjection for a few centuries, she, at the beginning of the -Christian era, rebelled and won her emancipation: and that the later -period of subjection was merely due to the incorporation in the -Christian religion of the primitive and crude ideal of a polygamous -Arab tribe. Against this intolerable superstition modern civilisation -has rebelled, and we are in the midst of a far deeper discussion of -woman’s nature and position than ever occurred before. -</p> - -<p> -The discussion is passing through the three phases which are customary -in these controversies. At first the clergy and the Conservative -quoted the Bible and the Fathers. Then, when women began to show that -they were disposed to examine a little more closely the authority of -documents which taught so obvious an injustice, it was pleaded that in -this case the religious view coincided with “sound” science and -sociology. In that phase we are to-day, discussing claims that -“nature” and our social interest are on the side of the old ideal. -In a few more decades, when the battle is won, the Bishop of London of -the time will be demonstrating that the reform was anticipated by the -Fathers sixteen hundred years ago and was contained, in germ, in the -New Testament. -</p> - -<p> -At present the controversy about woman’s position turns largely on -the question of her “nature,” and the literature of the subject is -prodigious. Woman has different organs and functions than those of -man, and it is natural to suppose that they will give her a different -character. Here is the opportunity of the male: he has a solid -scientific fact to build upon. -</p> - -<p> -He sagely examines the intellectual life of woman and pronounces it -inferior to that of man: he measures her brain and finds it smaller -than that of man, and thus discovers the scientific basis of her -inferiority; and he never reflects that, since he, on the whole, -forbade her to develop her brain and intelligence during the fifteen -centuries of Christian domination, it may be that her brain is not -working with all the energy of which it is capable. He lays down for -this dependent creature a certain code of deportment and behaviour, -and, when it has enfeebled her, he discourses on her inferior muscular -development: if any girls or women defiantly exercise their muscles -and become strong, he calls them “unwomanly” and happily -exceptional. He observes that woman is more emotional than man; and, -of course, he does not ask physiologists whether this may be merely, -or mainly, the effect (as it is) of the muscular and intellectual -restrictions he has placed on her. He bids her develop pretty curves -on her body for his entertainment, and never thinks about the -physiological and psychological effect of the dead mass of fat and the -flabby muscles. He kindly undertakes (for a consideration) the care of -this weaker companion, and, when she begins to prove that she can fend -for herself, he severely censures her for intruding on his -labour-market. He learns from novelists that she has a peculiar power -of “intuition” (in fiction), and a greater fineness of perception -than man (which exact experiment in America has shown to be untrue), -and is altogether a deep and unfathomable being. And he then, in -virtue of his superior understanding of her “mysterious” nature, -proceeds to dictate to her about her sphere and her capacities. -</p> - -<p> -The absurdities and contradictions of male writers on women, supported -by some women writers, during the last two hundred years, would fill a -volume. They were more or less intelligible, and certainly -entertaining, in the earlier part of the modern period, but at a time -when we have scientific and historical information to guide us they -are neither intelligent nor amusing. We now know that there is no such -thing as an unchangeable nature of a living organism. Structure and -function vary with use and environment, whatever theory of heredity -one follows. Forbid the brain and muscles to function for some -centuries, and they will become feebler: restore their activity and -they will return to strength. Shut a woman out of politics or business -or war, and she will lose her capacity for it: reintroduce her to it, -and her faculties are sharpened. When the kings of Dahomi formed a -regiment of women in their army, the women were found to be more -deadly fighters than the men, and they drank as heavily. -</p> - -<p> -As far as the political phase of the modern Feminist struggle is -concerned, the application of these principles is clear enough. When -statesmen can find no better argument against the enfranchisement of -women than the fact that (like the politicians themselves) they do no -military service, and when scientific men plead only their periodical -perturbations and their “change of life,” it is time to cease -arguing. Even in countries which have a system of conscription it has -never been proposed that those who are exempt from service should not -have a vote. In a country like England the objection is supremely -foolish: it reminds one of Plato’s ironical argument, in this -connection, that men who are bald should not be allowed to make shoes. -As to the comparative disturbance of judgment which a certain -proportion of women suffer at certain periods, it is preposterous to -suppose that this does not unfit them for more important work, but -<i>does</i> unfit them for casting a vote once in seven years. Is it -suggested that the Conservative matron will, if an election fall in -her period of nervous instability, march in a frenzy to the poll and -vote for Keir Hardie? Even the more or less intoxicated male voter -does not overrule a settled conviction so easily. But it is waste of -time to discuss such matters. A simple investigation of years of -experience in America and Australasia is more valuable than the -pedantic declarations of one or two scientific men. Even Conservative -Australians smiled when I asked them if the consequences of female -enfranchisement, as they are darkly foreboded by serious people in -England, had been observed in their Commonwealth. -</p> - -<p> -The anti-suffrage campaign has been the death-blow of the prejudice -against the enfranchisement of women. It has shown the complete -futility of the Conservative position. Women would probably have the -vote in England to-day if a section of those who demand it had not -taken a false path. The end, however sacred, does not justify criminal -means; nor can any serious statesman yield to violence and -intimidation. Yet there is nothing in this temporary aberration to -strengthen the anti-Feminist position. It was an error of judgment and -a misreading of history. I am well acquainted with many of the ladies -who did these regrettable things, and I know that the suggestion of -“hysteria” is an insult. It is, however, useless to discuss this -question further. Women will be enfranchised in England within a few -years, and in all civilised nations within a quarter of a century. -</p> - -<p> -Then will begin the campaign for the right to sit in Parliament, even -in the Ministry. From sheer force of prejudice the great majority of -the enfranchised women will resist this further claim, and the long -story of education and agitation will be repeated. This is the outcome -of our habit of persistently compromising with false traditions -instead of frankly discarding them. The immortal jokes about women -will be retailed in the House of Commons by our legislators; the same -dark warnings will come from scientific Cassandras who have felt -social influence; the same tragic whispers about “what every woman -knows” will be heard in drawing-rooms. Then, about the year 1930, we -will discover that woman is really capable of undertaking the not very -exacting duties of the average Member of Parliament,—if we have not -in the meantime abolished these aimless long debates on subjects which -all approach with a fixed conviction,—and that it may not be -impossible to find a woman with the capacity of Mr. Reginald M’Kenna -or Lord Gladstone or Mr. Walter Long. Our Mrs. Humphry Wards will be -the first to compete for the office. -</p> - -<p> -I turn to the more serious question of the economic enfranchisement of -women. On this side of the Feminist movement our views are hardly less -hazy than in regard to politics. The middle-class, being the brain as -well as the backbone of England, is chiefly responsible for the maxim -that woman’s place is the home; but the middle-class is also the -great employer of labour, and it has found that female labour is -cheaper than male, and has therefore concluded that woman’s proper -place is the office or the workshop. More than a fourth of the girls -and women of England work outside the home. This material incentive to -right views is, however, limited in its action. When the middle-class -woman in turn seeks economic independence, she is received with -coldness, if not derision. Women may be clerks, teachers, actresses, -telegraphists, hosiery-makers, etc., but they ought not to aspire to -be doctors, lawyers, or stockbrokers. If they ask the reason, they -hear an inconsistent jumble of statements. In the first place, of -course, they are not clever enough; in the second place, however, they -are likely to be so far successful that they would lessen the -available employment of men. -</p> - -<p> -Certainly in such a haphazard industrial world as ours the accession -of a fresh army of workers will cause, and is causing, confusion. On -the <i>laissez-faire</i> principle this overcrowding of the market is good; -it gives a greater play to selection and promotes efficiency. But we -have, as I said, forced <i>laissez-faire</i> to compromise with decency. We -prefer a little overcrowding, but not too much. The opening of the -doors of all the professions to woman means a worse overcrowding than -ever in the medical and legal worlds, and we naturally hesitate. -</p> - -<p> -Naturally, but not justly or logically. Between logic and justice the -modern man pleads that he is distracted, and he asks time for -reconstruction; asks, in other words, that we should leave the trouble -to another generation. This shrinking from trouble is of no avail. We -have sanctioned the principle of female industry outside the -home—millions of women are so employed in England to-day—and we have -absolutely no ground to limit it except the natural disability of -woman or the social need for her to undertake other functions. Of her -natural disability little need be said here. We have had, in most -countries, decades of experience of the employment of women in many -industries—teaching, nursing, journalism, factory-work, art, theatre, -post-office, type-writing, shop-work, and so on. What proportion of -complaint to the number of workers is there that their periodical -functions make them unfit for employment? We do not need learned -experts on gynecology to tell us of the acute and exceptional cases -which have come under their observation. The scientific and practical -procedure is to make a general inquiry into the net result of our -employment of millions of girls and women. Most of us would await such -a report with confidence. As long as the wages of women are lower than -those of men, we hear very little complaint; nor do we find the work -of our schools or the play of our theatres very much interrupted by -peculiarly feminine weaknesses. Of late years women have shown that -they are equally qualified to be dentists, doctors, chartered -accountants, etc. Common-sense would persuade us, if we would find the -real limits of woman’s capacity, to open to her all the doors of the -world of work and learn it by experience. -</p> - -<p> -One must give more serious attention to the claim that this economic -enfranchisement of women will tend to lessen maternity, and will -therefore endanger our social interests. This question of the -birth-rate is, in fact, very important from many points of view, and -it is extremely advisable to have a clear and reasoned grasp of it. -Many people are at once alarmed if it is shown that a practice will -tend to lessen the birth-rate. They rarely examine with critical -attention the reasons which would be alleged by those who maintain -that a lowering of the birth-rate <i>is</i> a social menace. -</p> - -<p> -But one needs no lengthy reflection to discover that at the root of -all this clamour for maintaining or increasing the birth-rate we have -only military requirements. Some, indeed, urge that a nation needs as -many soldiers as possible for her industrial army as well as for her -military forces; but, seeing that each nation already has more than -she can employ, we are not impressed by this phrase. It is not volume -of production, or gross largeness of revenue, which makes a nation -great. It is the proportion of her revenue to her population, and in -that respect some of the smallest States are the most happily -situated. The need of a large army alone justifies complaints about a -falling birth-rate, and it is monstrous that we should lay this strain -on parents merely in order to produce “fodder for cannon.” The -actual need of each country, as long as the military system lasts, -must, of course, be met, but—apart from the hope that we will soon -cast off the greater part of this military burden—two circumstances -show that we have not here a sound and permanent social need. The -birth-rate is falling in all civilised countries, and will eventually -reach a common low level; and the war has shown us that a nation with -a reduced population may, like any nation with a small population, -find compensation for its weakness in alliances. -</p> - -<p> -The truth is that the premature advance of France in restricting its -birth-rate has led to a general fallacy. France exposed itself to a -particular danger in face of Germany, and this special weakness of -France was converted into the general statement that any nation which -reduces its birth-rate is in danger. Not only is the general statement -untrue, but the particular case of France is very carelessly -conceived. After 1871 the German Empire had such an advantage in -population over France, and (until 1895) so much less need of -maintaining a fleet, that even a full birth-rate would not have -equipped France confidently for a combat. In any case, we come back -always to military needs, and we may trust that these will not long -impose their terrible strain on civilisation. There is, apart from -them, no reason why the birth-rate should not sink in every country to -the level of the death-rate, and in many countries even lower. -</p> - -<p> -On the other hand, the superficial folk who cry for heavy maternity -and full cradles overlook a very important social fact. I am thinking -chiefly of the men and women who denounce in principle the practice of -restricting births. Not only do they ignore the overcrowding of our -trades and professions,—and they are usually amongst the most -reluctant to organise them,—but they fail to notice that the -increasing application of science and humane sentiment to our modes of -living threatens the earth, as a whole, with enormous over-population, -unless the birth-rate be checked. The population of England has -increased nearly fourfold in the past hundred years, whereas it had -little more than doubled in the previous two hundred years. The -factors which are responsible for this vast modern increase are -becoming more active every decade, and are spreading over the world. -How will the population of Europe and Asia stand when they are fully -applied in Russia, China, and India? Within twenty years the United -States, according to its agricultural experts, will have as large a -population as it can support, and we have already seen Germany very -largely thrust into war because of its superabundant population. The -future is full of peril and misery if we continue to allow this -military demand for men to masquerade as a sound and permanent human -need. The birth-rate <i>must</i> be checked. -</p> - -<p> -We must therefore refuse to allow the path of reform to be obstructed -by either the priest or the drill-sergeant. If ever a time comes when -some real interest of the race is endangered by too low a birth-rate, -we may trust the race to see to it. Conservatives often imagine that -those who would reform life on common-sense lines are devoid of -sentiment. They confuse sentiment and sentimentality, which is -sentiment out of accord with reason. The man of the future will be, in -my judgment, not less, but more emotional than the man of to-day; but -he will not allow ancient prejudices and mere phrases to have the -unchecked support of his feelings. It will not be enough to tell him -that divorce is increasing, or the birth-rate falling, or respect for -the clergy deteriorating. He will ask the precise value in social -terms of your bogy. At present we have, on broad social grounds, much -to gain and nothing to lose by a fall of the birth-rate. Indeed, the -prospect of a fall is, as far as this economic development alone is -concerned, much exaggerated. Millions of employed women have, and will -continue to have, children. Under our present system of industry this -has undoubtedly certain risks and burdens; under the organised system -of employment for which I plead it will be possible to adjust -employment to maternal functions. -</p> - -<p> -And this brings me to the cardinal issue of the whole controversy: the -economic position of the married woman or the mother. Let us face this -graver position quite candidly. The industrial disorganisation will -right itself in the course of time. The middle-class father of our -time whose daughter does a certain amount of work, not in order to -relieve his pocket, but in order to buy additional luxuries for -herself, has assuredly a grievance. She takes part of a man’s work -and pay, yet leaves on him the old burden of maintenance. She makes -matters worse by accepting a low wage, because she is not -self-maintaining. I am assuming that women will become independent -economic units, and that the rate of payment will be—equal wage for -equal service. -</p> - -<p> -But the position of the married woman, or of the independent woman who -undertakes maternal functions, forms a special and difficult problem, -which is pressing upon us more heavily every decade. There is -spreading rapidly through the civilised world a feeling of rebellion -against the economic dependence of wife or husband. No Conservative -argumentation, no censure of new ideas, no religious preaching of -self-sacrifice for a doubtful reward in heaven, will relieve us of -this difficulty. Educated women—statistics of college-taught women -are available—are increasingly rebelling against the subjection or -inferiority which this economic dependence seems to entail. It is the -chief motive of the general demand for economic independence (or an -independent place in the industrial world) and has much to do with the -revolt against marriage itself. Whether or no we adopt new ideals of -social life, this revolt will spread. -</p> - -<p> -One very quickly sees that it is not so much marriage as the -traditional practice of husbands which is chiefly responsible for the -revolt. The practice varies considerably, but, apart from a small -class in which the wife brings with her or earns an independent -income, it is still generally true to say that the wife receives what -the husband chooses to give. Now it is plain that this difficulty may -be met in a very large proportion of cases by an equitable voluntary -agreement. Various domestic experiments of the kind are being tried, -and a comparison of experiences would be useful. Many people are -agreed in the just view that, since the wife works at home while the -husband works abroad, all income is joint income. A common fund, -accessible to both, is assigned for household and saving, and an equal -and fixed personal share is taken by each from the income or wage. -Such an arrangement is quite easily practised by middle-class people, -and it seems to me to remove every legitimate suspicion of ignominy -from the wife’s position. -</p> - -<p> -When unmarried women have secured economic independence they will be -able to demand some such arrangement before marrying. The kind of -“modesty” which would prevent a woman from having an understanding -before marriage in regard to income and children is a very costly and -foolish luxury. Let them insist that the ritual words, “With all my -worldly goods I thee endow,” must mean something more than that they -shall have chocolates and pretty dresses <i>if</i> they humour the moods of -a husband. Our law, which secures for a wife full maintenance when she -has ceased to do any work for it (after a separation), but has no -interest in her when she is working dutifully for twelve or fourteen -hours a day, is infinitely more dangerous to marriage than are the -puritan assaults of Mr. G. B. Shaw. In any case, a voluntary agreement -that a wife has access to the bank and cash-box, and a right to take -for personal use the same sum as her husband, removes all need of -asking money from a husband (which is justly odious to many women), -and makes a wife economically independent in any important sense of -the word. -</p> - -<p> -But it would be futile to hope either that the majority of men will -thus surrender their privileged position, or that all women will -recognise even such an arrangement as economic independence. A grave -conflict undoubtedly lies before us, and there will be an increasing -demand for the State-endowment of wifehood, or at least of motherhood. -The suffrage movement has naturally inflamed the difficulty by -educating women in a sense of grievance. Indeed, it seems to many of -us that Feminist writers have at times gone far beyond legitimate -grievances and set up fictitious and mischievous standards. This is a -very common development of propagandist movements which meet with a -prolonged resistance. The first generation of agitators says the -obvious and just things in regard to the reform: the next generation -must revive the jaded sentiment with stimulating novelties and -exaggerations. It seems to me one of these morbid exaggerations to -speak of marriage as “legalised prostitution”; to imagine that one -is “selling one’s body” to a man, or receiving payment for -ministering to his “lust.” One Feminist writer of some influence, -and some pretension to knowledge of science, has actually compared the -human male very unfavourably with all other male animals in the world, -on the ground that the latter are content with a restricted period of -“rut”! -</p> - -<p> -This mixture of ancient Puritanism and advanced sociology is as -incongruous as it is mischievous. A woman who sincerely regards -sex-pleasure in the way generally implied by the use of the word -“lust”—a woman who has not the same healthy desire of it as her -partner—has no right to marry: except, of course, to marry a man with -similarly antique views. A wife of such a kind may very well consider -that she is being “paid” to surrender her body. The normal wife is -not paid for that at all. She is paid—if there is any paying—to care -for the home and her children: which is as well earned a payment as -the fee of a lawyer. And from the sentimental point of view it does -not make a particle of difference whether she is paid out of her -husband’s income or out of the coffers of the State. She would still -“sell her body,” if there is any selling of body. But there is -not. Maternity and sex-pleasure are entirely different matters. -</p> - -<p> -I am deliberately trying to undermine the plea for the endowment of -motherhood, because the proposal seems to me to present very grave -difficulties which even so penetrating a sociologist as Mr. H. G. -Wells has, apparently, not appreciated. Mr. Wells is, of course, in a -very different position from the Feminist writers who advocate the -complete endowment or maintenance of wives or mothers by the State. -Such a scheme would cost about £300,000,000 a year, and need not be -discussed. Mr. Wells suggests rather a modest contribution per child -born (leaving out, I assume, wealthier mothers); a practicable scheme, -with much in its favour. Yet it seems to me that such endowment would -mean that we would encourage the weakest in will, the most sensual, -the least intelligent and least provident of our people, to breed. -Intelligent women would not abandon the practice of restricting births -because the State offered them a few shillings per child. The better -class—whether of manual or professional workers—would have to pay -for the undesirable fertility of the worst class. We are just -beginning to realise that quality of children is more precious than -quantity, and the endowment of motherhood would not encourage this -saner view. The kind of brute who is at present restrained by the -paternity-law would be restrained no longer: the rougher type of -husband—a very numerous type—would pay so much less to his wife when -he found the State contributing (either in cash or kind) to her: the -man who at present practises restriction, not out of consideration for -his wife and family, but to have more shillings for himself, would -cease to practise it, and lay a greater burden on his wife. -</p> - -<p> -But, while there seem to be such grave objections to the endowment of -motherhood that we do better to strengthen women in their individual -demand of justice, we must remember that the wife will have the -advantage of other changes in the home. Domestic service is becoming -more and more repugnant to girls, and some form of co-operative and -efficient housekeeping, with common servants and restaurant, will be -adopted. Some day a photograph of a twentieth-century suburb will -provoke a smile. Perhaps the museum of the future will set up models -of our establishments, just as we set up in our ethnographical -galleries models of a Kaffir or a Papuan household. Boys and girls -will gaze with admiring delight at the naïveté of the model: a -thousand brick boxes, separated by a thousand little gardens, with -three thousand little chimneys smoking, a thousand amateur cooks -perspiring over a thousand fires, and a thousand inefficient -servant-girls flirting with the servants of rival butchers and -dairymen. The common nursery will especially relieve the mother and -lower the death-rate. The State will one day have an interest in -seeing that each babe ushered into the world, at such pain and -sacrifice, becomes a useful citizen. If any mothers care to entrust -the child more fully to it, the State will find it profitable to -respond. These things can be arranged without more detriment to -parental affection than there is in the case of women—often women who -write beautiful things in defence of the old tradition—who have -nurses for the child and send it later to a distant school for the -greater part of the year. -</p> - -<p> -Reforms of this kind will enormously relieve the home life and enable -even mothers to earn, if they wish, quite as much as the State would -ever be able to award them. The work will be better done, by trained -workers, at less cost. People do not reflect that this change has been -proceeding for centuries. Once the wife brewed the ale, and baked the -bread, and spun the linen: later she entrusted these things to experts -working for the community, and reserved for herself the making of -preserves, pickles, underclothing, and antimacassars: now these things -have gone to the expert, and the wife confines her amateur efforts to -scolding children and cooking refractory joints. She will be relieved -when it is all over, and we shall have no more of the “beautiful -doll” or the domestic drudge. The independent position and greater -leisure and broader interest in life will make her intellectual -activity more similar to that of man’s. -</p> - -<p> -I speak, of course, of the mass of women, and do not forget that -already the intellect of alert and thoughtful women is equal to that -of men of the corresponding class. The majority will be, as it were, -differently orientated toward life by these changes. A saner muscular -activity will restore the balance of the system, and will rid them of -the excessive nerve-energy, particularly of the sympathetic system, -which finds expression in facile and explosive emotion. There will -assuredly always be a bias toward sentiment in woman, and we have no -reason to fear a deterioration of the distinctively feminine -sentiments of tenderness, refinement, and sympathy. The relief from -the more irritating domesticities ought to accentuate them. On the -other hand, the idea of obeying the male or practising self-sacrifice -for his undue benefit, will certainly disappear; and it is quite time -that it did. Self-sacrifice, in case of need, comes instinctively to -either sex, but the kind of self-sacrifice which a selfish masculine -tradition has pressed on women is degrading to the man and unjust to -wife and daughter. All that is attractive and really beneficent in -woman will be fostered, but on the emotional side it will become less -and less characteristic of one sex. The sharp contrast of the sexes -tends to disappear. There is something grotesque about the traditional -idea that the human male must be distinguished by a greater capacity -for taking alcohol and using meaningless expletives and telling sexual -stories. Even in physical strength and athletic skill the sexes are -approaching; nor does one find any loss of charm or grace in some of -the finest women athletes. -</p> - -<p> -These changes are proceeding, and, apart from inevitable errors and -excesses, on which caricaturists fasten with their genial -unscrupulousness, the result is promising. Contemporary expressions of -alarm are often ludicrous. Thousands of ladies who are horrified at -the emergence of “a new sex” are themselves contriving, by means -which would have caused their prolific grandmothers to raise white -hands to heaven, to limit their families to two children. We take our -reform in small doses, as if complete social health were a thing to be -considered very seriously. Yet if one patiently traces in imagination -the effect of all these changes on the womanhood of the race, one -foresees a generation of women which recalls Shelley’s lines: -</p> - -<div class="quote_o"><div class="quote_i"> -<span class="i0">“And women, too, frank, beautiful, and kind</span> -<span class="i0">As the free heaven which rains fresh light and dew</span> -<span class="i0">On the wide earth, past; gentle radiant forms,</span> -<span class="i0">From custom’s evil taint exempt and pure;</span> -<span class="i0">Speaking the wisdom once they could not think,</span> -<span class="i0">Looking emotions once they feared to feel,</span> -<span class="i0">And changed to all which once they dared not be,</span> -<span class="i0">Yet, being now, made earth like heaven; nor pride,</span> -<span class="i0">Nor jealousy, nor envy, nor ill-shame,</span> -<span class="i0">The bitterest of those drops of treasured gall,</span> -<span class="i0">Spoilt the sweet taste of the nepenthe, love.”</span> -</div></div> - -<p class="noindent"> -Grant the poet his licence; women are not more likely than men to -become angels. The moral superiority which some Feminist writers claim -for their sex is founded on a curiously narrow view of life; if man, -instead of woman, had to pay the penalty of sexual intercourse, we -should probably find the aggression on the other side. Yet the most -sober-minded of us must expect from this healthier balance of powers, -this easing of the domestic burden, this limitation of care to a few -children, and this independence of marital generosity or marital -selfishness, a great advancement in the character and happiness of -woman. -</p> - -<p> -Shelley, however, was thinking less of wives than of free women, and -economic independence will swell their numbers. The changes I have -described will make marriage far less onerous, but they will also make -it easier for a woman to dispense with marriage, and before the end of -the twentieth century there will be in every city a growth of -temporary unions and independent conduct. Woman will be mistress, -morally and economically, of her own destiny; she will consult neither -husband nor priest. The plain moral law, which forbids a man to -inflict pain or injustice, will be more faithfully observed than it -ever was before. There will be an immense reduction of the hypocrisy, -the prostitution, the misery and illness, which this fictitious law of -chastity has always caused; and the alteration of public opinion will -remove from a woman the unpleasant consequences which unwedded love -entails at the present time. It is preposterous to say that the State -will be injured by these changes, and it seems clear that woman will -be happier, more healthily developed, and not less tender and graceful -than she can be under the present reign of shams. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch08"> -CHAPTER VIII.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">SHAMS OF THE SCHOOL</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">The</span> constructive scheme which I have in mind throughout this -criticism of our prejudices and institutions may, as I said, be summed -essentially in two words: industrial organisation and education. When -we have reformed our administrative machinery, which we miscall -“government,” and abandoned our military and naval atrocities, and -simplified international life, our chosen public servants will find -that these two are their chief concerns. Probably the supreme concern -will—once we have constructed an orderly industrial machinery—be -education, in the sense which I would attach to the word. Every year a -million new citizens will join the community, and it will be the -State’s first business to see that they are thoroughly prepared in -every respect to contribute to its weal and happiness, and that they -maintain throughout life sufficient intellectual alertness to control -their common concerns with wisdom and in a progressive spirit. It is -as a necessary preliminary to this that I have dealt critically and -reconstructively with the home and the parent. -</p> - -<p> -That glorification of indolence which we call the principle of -<i>laissez-faire</i> is so successful in this department of our public life -that what ought to be the State’s chief concern is hardly ever -mentioned in our orgies of parliamentary debate. We peck at it -occasionally. We enact that babies must have orange-boxes, and that -children must not smoke cigarettes or approach within a certain number -of yards of a bar (so that we get bar-scenes outside the door); and -occasionally the representatives of rival sects get up a grand debate -on the Bible in the school. These things emphasise the general -neglect. <i>Laissez-faire</i> meant originally, “Leave things as they -are”—it sounded better in French, but, like many ancient -sentiments, it was converted into a respectable philosophy: “The -State must leave as much as possible to the individual and the -amateur.” Nineteenth-century Radicals fought heroically for this -Conservative principle. -</p> - -<p> -Education, however, was so flagrantly neglected by the parent and the -Church that we had to compromise and take the child’s mind out of -their care: leaving its body and character to the old hazards. At last -it dawns on us that a sound body and character are just as important -to the State as the capacity to read comic journals and stories: that -the entire being of the child needs expert training, and it is worth -the State’s while to give it. This broad ideal of education is -increasingly accepted by pædagogists and social writers, and it is -already largely embodied in educational practice. It has provoked the -usual reaction, the usual determination that we will not allow our -ways to be reformed without a struggle. “Advanced” teachers fight -with Conservative teachers and politicians (particularly of the vestry -type), and the familiar old hymn-tunes are heard throughout the land. -We must not weaken parental responsibility: we must not lessen the -charm of the domestic circle: we must not encroach on the sphere of -the Church: we must beware of Socialism: we must resist the thin end -of the wedge wherever we see one. -</p> - -<p> -Why did the State, in the first half of the nineteenth century, -undertake the task of educating the young? I do not mean that -State-education was a new thing in history when a few European -Governments adopted it little over a century ago. The Roman Empire had -had a very fair system of municipal and State-education, and it is one -of the gravest charges against the clergy that they suffered it to -decay, and allowed or compelled ninety per cent. of their followers to -remain in a state of gross ignorance for fourteen hundred years. At -the end of the eighteenth century, as the revolt against -ecclesiastical authority spread, the idea of State-education was -revived. In England the clergy warmly resisted the progress of the -idea, but the appalling ignorance of the people proved intolerable to -the increasing band of reformers. Quakers like Lancaster and Agnostics -like Robert Owen demanded and provided schools for the children of the -workers, and the Church of England was forced to meet this danger of -unsectarian education by founding a rival and orthodox association. -But for fifty years the schooling remained so primitive, and the -proportion of illiterates remained so enormous, that at last the -bishops were brushed aside and the Government was compelled to resume -the work of the old Roman municipalities and Senate. -</p> - -<p> -The motives of the reformers and statesmen who secured this advance -were complex. Some of them were frankly anti-clerical and eager to -undermine superstition: some of them were business-men who pleaded -that a lettered worker was worth more to the State than an illiterate -worker. The predominant feeling was, as it had been among the Stoic -reformers at Rome, humanitarian. The gross ignorance of the mass of -the people was a disgrace to civilisation and a source of brutality -and crime: it was a human duty to educate. It was very widely -recognised that this sentiment imposed on us a duty of developing the -child’s character as well as its mind, but here the Churches were -inflexible. Unblushingly asserting that they were the historic -educators of Europe, they refused to relinquish their last hold on the -school, and the State was compelled to accept the compromise of -religious instruction in the public schools, as well as the endowment -of sectarian schools. As to the third part of the ideal of education, -the cultivation of the body, we may admit that science itself was not -yet sufficiently advanced to demand it. -</p> - -<p> -With the growth of democratic aspirations, the Conservative began to -see a danger in this plea that the community must see to the full -development of all its children, and new phrases were invented. -“Industrial efficiency” was the most plausible of these checks on -education. The manual workers were to have their intellects awakened -to the slight extent which was needed to make them better instruments -of production, but no further: lest they should become dissatisfied -with their position of inferiority and disturb our excellent -industrial order. Educators, however, refused to be restrained by this -kind of sociology. It was their business to develop the child’s -intelligence, and they had a fine ambition to do it thoroughly. They -built infant-schools, which took the tender young away from their -mothers, to the great advantage of both. They found that large numbers -of children were too poorly fed or too defective in body to receive -real education, and they instituted drill and demanded cheap or free -meals and medical inspection. They abolished the half-timer, and -raised the age of compulsory attendance. They began to resent the idea -that lessons from the Bible were a training of character. These -developments have alarmed many. They begin to see that in the long-run -these things will impose on the State the duty of developing the -child’s whole being—body, mind, and character—before the boy or -girl is allowed to enter the industrial world. We hesitate, as we do -in face of all large and fully developed ideals, and look round for -ways of escape. -</p> - -<p> -The chief of these evasions is still the doctrine of what we call -“parental responsibility.” Some day the idea that a parent is the -best-fitted person to train a child will be regarded as a medieval -superstition. The parent is as amateurish in training children as in -cooking or making frocks. The notion that “nature tells” a mother -what to do is part of the crude psychology of the Schoolmen. From the -moment of birth, and during the months before birth, the human mother -has no inspiration whatever. She goes by tradition, by the crude -advice of elders and neighbours, as every observer of the arrival of -the first baby knows. A cat acts by what we call “instinct,”—by -certain neuro-muscular reactions which natural selection has -perfected,—but a human being has intelligence instead of instinct, -and the first thing intelligence enjoins is that experts ought to be -trained for particular duties. The death-rate in every civilised -country has gone down enormously since we ceased to rely on motherly -instinct, or grandmotherly fables. A time may come, therefore, when -the State will receive a bearing woman in a properly appointed home, -and will care for the child from the moment of birth until, in its -later teens, it is equipped for work. I will suggest in the next -chapter that this ought by no means to be regarded as the completion -of education; here I am concerned only with the earlier part. Many are -convinced that this is the last and logical term of the development on -which we have entered. -</p> - -<p> -I am avoiding remote ideals as much as possible, but it is important -to meet the prejudice which opposes reform along this line. Many -people tell us that, if this unnatural dethronement of the mother and -invasion of the home are to be the final terms of our present -development, they will resist it at every step: on the familiar -thin-end-of-the-wedge principle. Our beautiful “home life” must be -preserved at all costs. Our “parental instincts” shall not be -enfeebled. -</p> - -<p> -Candidly, in what proportion of the real homes of England, as distinct -from the home of a fiction-writer, is the life “beautiful”? In -what proportion does it not rather present the spectacle of an -overburdened mother struggling heroically to live up to her -reputation for gentleness under the strain of ill or wayward children -and an irritating husband? In what proportion are the beautiful homes -of the novel written by spinsters or bachelors, or people who restrict -the number of their children, or men whose posthumous biographies do -not reveal a very sweet home life? I believe it was Carlyle who -originated that fond boast that no nation in the world has a word for -“home” like the English. It was certainly Dickens who gave us the -most touching pictures of domestic tenderness and happiness. How many -mothers of the working and lower middle class do not dread the -holidays, when the children threaten to be near them all day? How many -are capable of training children? How many do not regard a blow as the -supreme moral agency? How many would not welcome the easing of their -burden, and the training of their children by experts? And why in the -world should mothers be likely to have less affection for their -children because they have infinitely less trouble with them, and see -them only in their smiling hours? -</p> - -<p> -The happiest phase of English home life is, surely, found in those -middle-class families which can send the children away to school for -four-fifths of the year and welcome them home periodically in the -holiday mood. In the vast majority of cases the teacher has to -struggle despairingly against the influence of the home and the -street; for it is to the street that the mother entrusts the child. A -lady (an educational expert) once observed to me that it was -remarkable to find the children in Gaelic districts of Scotland -speaking the purest English. On the contrary, it was wholly natural, -and it points an important pædagogical moral. The children learned -English <i>from their teachers only</i>; there was no corrupt English -dialect in the home or village to undo the teacher’s lessons. In -other matters besides language the school-lessons are constantly -frustrated outside the school. -</p> - -<p> -I pass frequently through the stream of children pouring out of a -large and handsome suburban school. It is not in a slum. There are -broad green fields on every side, and there are vast and beautiful -public spaces not far away. But the homes from which many of the -children come are squalid, and the street-scenes, especially in front -of the local inn, are often disgusting. On more than one occasion I -have heard the men openly talk of their practice of unnatural vice. I -have seen a girl of ten watch her intoxicated father misconduct -himself with a prostitute, while the mother—whose attention was -called to the fact by the child, in the mono-syllabic language of the -district—chatted with a neighbour. And I am not surprised to notice -that, when the children burst from school, which they hate, numbers of -them break into foul language, indecent behaviour, and fighting. Their -world, outside the school, is one mighty drag on the teacher’s -efforts. When they leave school, with brains half-developed and only -the maxims of ancient Judæa (at which half their world scoffs) to -guide their conduct, when they enter workshops and laundries and join -the company of ring-eyed boys and girls in the first flush of -sex-development, they shed the feeble influence of the school-lessons -in a few months. -</p> - -<p> -The district I have in mind is a very common type of district: a -healthy, open suburb on the fringe of London, tainted by one of those -older villages in which the poorest workers are apt to congregate. It -has an expensive Church-Institute and numerous chapels. You may see -the thing in almost any part of London, and most other towns. I have a -vivid recollection of passing from a Catholic elementary school and -strict home in Manchester to a large warehouse thirty-five years ago. -There is little change in that respect to-day. A very few years ago a -Manchester boy passed the same way; and a month or two later, his -father told me, he returned home chuckling over a “funny story” -about Christ. The school fails, not from lack of devotion in the -teachers, but because the child learns more in the street, and often -in the home; and these lessons are, somehow, more congenial. -</p> - -<p> -Now if we are not satisfied with this comparative waste of effort and -sterility of result, we have to consider candidly the ambition of the -educationist. He wants to turn out a young citizen with an active -mind, a sound body, and a character prepared to resist the more -degrading influences of the world he will enter. He cannot carry out -this aim in the case of every child entrusted to him, but he can in -most cases, if the State will help him. He must have his children -properly nourished: neither underfed nor stuffed with coarse food by -ignorant mothers. He must have them seasonably clothed and shod: again -the mothers need instruction and pressure. He must have, not only -drill and more natural forms of exercise, but more control over the -children outside of school-hours; he is already beginning, with great -promise of good, to walk and play with them, to take them to museums, -and so on. He must have adequate medical assistance, and must have the -support of the law in counteracting dirty homes and careless parents. -He must keep the child still a few years longer at school, because a -child only begins to be really educable at thirteen or fourteen. He -must have the encouragement of knowing that the more promising boys -and girls will find the avenue open to higher schools, and that the -community will make some serious provision of mental stimulation for -the adolescent and the adult. And in order to carry out properly this -large and promising scheme of training he must have twice as many -colleagues as he has, so that each may be able to give individual -attention to pupils, and in order that too great demands be not made -on their hours of rest. -</p> - -<p> -But where are we to find the very large sums of money which would be -required for carrying out such a scheme? I wish everybody in England -realised that we should have the funds to carry out this scheme in its -entirety, in its most advanced developments, if we abolished -militarism; that if we had done this before 1914, we should have had, -in the cost of the war, the funds to carry out such a scheme two or -three times over. We have to reflect also whether the increased -prosperity of England would not pay the cost. There are other -considerations which I give later, but I would add here at least a -word about experience in other lands. At New York and Chicago I -visited schools—elementary and secondary, but both free—with which -we have nothing to compare in this country: palatial structures with -superb equipment and devoted staffs. Yet when I asked ratepayers how -they contrived to spend so lavishly on education, the three or four -public men I asked were so little conscious of a burden that they were -unable to explain satisfactorily where the funds came from! -</p> - -<p> -We are, however, making progress here and there,—Bradford, for -instance, has had the courage to be quite Socialistic in its care of -the young,—and the triple ideal of education is generally, if at -times reluctantly, recognised. As far as the education of the body is -concerned, in fact, we have no ground for quarrelling with our -teachers, whatever we may say of some of our educational authorities. -Medical inspection, drill, hygiene, play, excursions, feeding, etc., -are discussed very conscientiously at every meeting of teachers, and -the reforms proposed are more or less admitted in all places, even -under the London County Council. The teachers themselves often go far -beyond their prescribed tasks in endeavouring to help the children. In -places they yield part of their necessary midday rest to attend to the -feeding of poor children: which I found admirably, and most cheerfully -and expeditiously, done in Chicago (where 1500 children at one school -were quietly and excellently fed in thirty minutes) by a committee of -ladies of the district. They give Saturdays and holidays for -conducting visits to museums or excursions, or for controlling sports. -What is chiefly needed is that the authorities should deal stringently -with backward sectarian schools, and provide a very much larger supply -of teachers and servants. The municipal authority of the richest city -in the world—the London County Council—is scandalously stingy and -reactionary in this respect. -</p> - -<p> -When we turn to the question of educating the intelligence, it is not -possible to approve so cordially. No one, assuredly, can fail to -appreciate the zeal and efforts of educationists and teachers, -especially in the last few decades. Hardly any body of professional -men and women among us, certainly no body of public servants, has a -deeper and sounder ambition to conduct its work on the most effective -lines. A vast literature is published, frequent congresses are held, -and the science of psychology is assiduously cultivated. One must -appreciate also the fatal limitations of the teacher’s activity; as -long as we withdraw children from him at the age of fourteen, -education is impossible. It may seem, therefore, ungracious or unwise -to criticise,—though I am not wholly a layman in regard to -education,—but there is at least one feature of our school life to -which I would draw serious critical attention. -</p> - -<p> -The general public is apt to express this feature resentfully by -saying that the modern teacher “crams.” Better informed critics -have put it that modern education is little more than a process of -“encephalisation,” or the imprinting of certain facts on the -child’s brain almost as mechanically as the indenting of marks on -the cylinder of a gramophone. Each of these criticisms implies an -injustice. Educationists and teachers have, of course, discussed this -very point for decades, and the present system is the formulation of -their deliberate judgment. They still differ amongst themselves as to -the proportion of memory-work and stimulation-work, but it is too late -in the day (if accurate at all) to tell teachers that to “educate” -means “to draw out” the child’s “faculties,” not to put in. -Every elementary teacher knows that he must train the child to think -as well as furnish it with positive information. The point one may -legitimately raise is whether the general educational practice -represents a fair adjustment of the two functions. -</p> - -<p> -It is essential in such disputes to have clear principles. What is the -aim of education? The current phrase, “to make good citizens,” is -far too vague. A good citizen is, in a large employer’s mind, a man -who will work for two pounds a week and not annoy wealthier people by -demanding more: in a clergyman’s mind, one who goes to church. The -point is serious and relevant, because there is a growing tendency -among the middle and upper class to insist on a return to the ideal of -the old Church of England school society: the children must not be -educated in such a way that they will aspire above the station to -which the Almighty has called them. As, however, the educationist will -probably reply at once that his duty is to do all in his power to -promote intelligence during such period as the State thinks advisable, -we need not discuss the larger ideal of developing the child’s -powers on general humanitarian grounds. -</p> - -<p> -But glance at the manuals which are used in our schools, and consider -whether we have as yet realised the true ideal of education. These -manuals, and the methods employed, are the outcome of a hundred years -of critical discussion, yet I venture to say that they need to be -entirely rewritten. I pass over the infant-schools and earlier -standards, where the first general ideas are carefully, and on the -whole judiciously, implanted. As soon, however, as the child enters -its teens, it is painfully overloaded with memory-work. I take, for -example, the manuals of geography and history which are used in -educating children of eleven in a first-class London secondary school. -They are crammed with information which will never be of the least use -to one man in ten thousand, and which we have no right whatever to -impose on the young brain with so much necessary work to do. -</p> - -<p> -The manual of early English history which I have before me is a -characteristically modern production. Instead of the grim old -paragraphs, in alternate large and small type, on which the eye of the -child nearly always gazes with reluctance, there are vivid sketches of -life in successive ages. There is danger, perhaps, that the child will -pass to the opposite extreme, and take the manual as a story-book, a -work of ephemeral interest; at least careful guidance will be needed -to enable it to select the necessary material which is to be -memorised. But the chief defect still is the overloading of the pages -with matter of no serious usefulness. The doings of Ethelbert and -Ethelfrith and Redwald and Penda and Offa, whose very names bewilder -the young mind, are compressed into a few forbidding paragraphs, -instead of being relegated to the University. Later come Ethelwulf and -Osburh and Ethelbald and Ethelbert; and Sweyn Forkbeard and Olaf -Trygvasson and Guhilda; and Rhodri and Llywelyn and Griffith ap Rees -and Own Gwynedd and Egfrith and Malcolm Canmore and John Balliol. How -many of us know, or need to know, a word about them, and their -families, and their battles? Then the French wars are told in detail, -and the pages bristle with dates and French names and genealogies; and -the Wars of the Roses introduce a new series of repellent and useless -names and dates. The child, in a word, is enormously overburdened with -stuff which we adults would refuse to commit to memory or even to -read. Yet this is a very modern manual, the last word in the -adaptation of history to the mind of a child of ten or eleven. -</p> - -<p> -The manual of European geography, also, is one of the most modern and -enlightened that a teacher can choose, but it imposes a mass of -pedantic and useless knowledge. Isotherms and isobars and the freezing -of the Oder and Vistula and Danube; the navigability of the Ebro and -Guadalquiver, and the wheat-growing areas of France and Spain, and the -industries of Lille and Roubaix and Magdeburg and Lombardy and Smyrna; -in a word, fully one-third of the details in the little manual—the -details which it is most difficult to remember, which tax the -child’s brain most, and will be forgotten soonest and with least -loss—ought not to have been inserted. The whole plan is academic and -pedantic: it is built on the supposition that the child must have a -summary of the kind of knowledge which a geographical expert would -have to master. And in later years the child must laboriously cover -the whole globe with the same unnecessary attention to useless -details. -</p> - -<p> -In mathematics, at least, the same criticism will hold. Geometry is, -of course, no longer a mere task of memorisation; but the positive -knowledge of problems is not of the least use, save in a few -exceptional cases, and the training of the mind might be achieved by -lessons in natural science. In natural science itself one might -quarrel with much of the material given: not one in ten thousand, for -instance, will even remember in later years the elements of botany. -But at least we are, in giving scientific information, training the -young to inquire into the nature of positive reality and initiating -them to branches of knowledge in which they can easily advance in -later years, since we have so fine a popular literature of science, -and the advance will be a considerable gain in their whole mental -outlook. It is chiefly in regard to history and geography that time -and labour might be spared, and more leisure given for ensuring that -the child will assimilate the knowledge imparted. Mental energy should -not be wasted in mastering an immense collection of facts which, -experience shows, are certain to be forgotten within a few years. -</p> - -<p> -I may also recall that, when we choose to carry out the elementary -reform of abolishing the plurality of tongues, a vast economy will be -made in the curriculum, and really useful knowledge will be imparted -more thoroughly and with finer attention to the texture of the -child’s brain. The academic plea, that there is excellent training -in a thorough study of Latin and Greek, may be freely granted. But -there is just as excellent a training in the thorough study of such -branches of science as are fitted for the school, and the positive -information gained is permanently useful. -</p> - -<p> -If we thus eliminate languages and simplify geography and history we -give the modern teacher a more hopeful opportunity. It is surely the -universal experience that we forget nine-tenths of the geographical -details we learn at school, and we find little inconvenience in -re-learning such as we need to master in later years. A judicious -outline-scheme, with more physiography and less of useless detail, and -a fuller account of one’s national geography (not because it -describes the child’s country, but because it is practical -information) would suffice. The remainder, or part of it, could be -imparted in technical training for commerce. History should be wholly -remodelled. It is ludicrous to-day to make the child grow pale and -worn over the past royal families and wars of England, and dismiss the -general history of the race in a page or two. A fine scheme of the -history, and even the prehistory and origin, of the human race, with -so much fuller information about the child’s own country as is -useful for the understanding of its institutions and monuments, could -be imparted in less time, with more interest, and with far greater -profit. The patriotic sham deeply vitiates our scheme of instruction -and makes the training of the child scandalously one-sided and -exacting. Germany has recently shown us the pernicious results of this -political perversion of education. -</p> - -<p> -Passing to the moral education of children, we at once find it cruelly -distorted and enfeebled by a religious sham of the least defensible -nature. Such moralists as Kant and Emerson hardly exaggerated the -human importance of moral law, however much they failed to understand -its human significance. Character is the pivot on which life turns. -The general diffusion of fine qualities of character would transform -the earth, quite apart from economic and political reform, and lead to -a speedier settlement of our industrial and international -difficulties. It is therefore of supreme importance to train the will -or character of the child from its earliest years. Yet there is no -other branch of our education, and hardly any other branch of our -life, in which we tolerate so crude and ludicrous a pretence of work. -</p> - -<p> -The education authority of the Metropolis of England would, one -supposes, have the advantage of the finest expert advice in the world. -Enter one of the thousands of schools under its control, however, and -ask how the training of character is conducted. A teacher informs you -that at college he has learned only to impart “Biblical -knowledge.” He will show you a scheme of lessons founded on the Old -and New Testament. The younger the child, the more preposterous the -lesson. In the lower standards the child must learn the story of the -Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, etc. It is still too young to imagine -that its teacher may, at the command of our education authorities, be -grossly deceiving it, or to perceive that these ancient Babylonian -legends contain no particular incentive to virtue. When it passes to -the higher standards it is initiated to some equally remarkable -stories about the early history of mankind and the early conduct of -the Deity. The teacher rarely believes these things, and it may be -assumed that men like Mr. Sidney Webb, who voted for this scheme of -education in the L.C.C., do not. If the child has intelligence enough -to raise the question of veracity, it must be snubbed or deceived. A -London teacher told me that on one occasion, when he had described -some of the remarkable proceedings of the Israelites in ancient -Palestine, a precocious youngster asked: “Please, sir, is it -true?” Our education authorities forbid him to reply to such a -question. Indeed, his headmaster was a Nonconformist (very zealous for -Bible lessons), and would find a way to punish any departure from the -appointed untruths. -</p> - -<p> -The lessons from the New Testament are, it is true, devoid of this -atmosphere of Oriental animalism, ferocity, and superstition which -clings to the Old Testament lesson, but here again the teacher is -forced to violate the elementary principles of education. He must -gravely tell the story of the miraculous birth, the crucifixion, and -the resurrection of Christ. He probably knows that some of the most -learned divines in England and other countries regard these stories as -false, but he must deliberately and solemnly tell the young that -Christ was God and that these things are written in the “Word of -God.” He must repeat parables which we know to have been borrowed -(and often spoiled in the borrowing) from the Jewish rabbis, yet teach -that this was the unique feature of Christ’s preaching. He must use -all his ingenuity to wring a moral lesson out of the parables of the -workers in the vineyard, the royal banquet, and so on. He must keep up -this elaborate deception of the child until it leaves his care; and he -knows that, in nine cases out of ten in London or any large city, the -child is already hearing on all sides sneers at these ancient myths, -and laughing at the system which inculcates them in the name of all -that is most sacred. -</p> - -<p> -The aim of our London authorities, and education authorities generally -in England, is not to train character, but to teach the contents of -the Bible. Why a civic authority should include the teaching of the -Bible no man knows; and whether a civic authority can be indifferent -to the truth or untruth of the lessons it imposes few seem to ask. Mr. -Sidney Webb, endorsing these lessons, said that the Bible was “great -literature”; and scores of our parochial legislators, who were not -generally known to admire great literature (but <i>were</i> known to have -numbers of Nonconformist constituents), fervently repeated the phrase. -Does the child appreciate or hear a single word about the literary -qualities of the Bible? Does a literary lesson need to be a deliberate -lesson in untruth? Can we find no great literature which has not the -taint of untruth? -</p> - -<p> -Dr. Clifford says that these lessons tend to make “good citizens.” -It is not at first sight apparent why we should go to the literature -of an ancient, mendacious, polygamous, and bloodthirsty tribe for -lessons in citizenship in a modern civilisation. Let us suppose, -however, that the ingenious teacher has wrung a moral of truthfulness, -fraternity, respect for women, self-reliance, and universal justice -out of these peculiar records of ancient Judæa. Follow the child, in -imagination, into the later years of citizenship. He hardly leaves the -school before he learns that the whole Biblical scheme is very -generally ridiculed, and is rejected even by large numbers of learned -theologians. Before many years, at least, he is fairly sure to learn -this. The prescriptions of the Sermon on the Mount he, of course, -never had the slightest intention of observing. The teacher, even -while he reads the quixotic counsels, knows, and possibly notes with -approval, that the boy’s code is: “If any smite thee on the one -cheek, smite him forthwith on both.” But the boy now learns that -from the Creation to the Resurrection the whole story is seriously -disputed and is rejected by the majority of well-educated people. He -looks back on his “Bible lessons” and his teacher with derision, -and he discards the whole authority of his code of conduct. Surely an -admirable foundation for virtue and citizenship! -</p> - -<p> -Into the larger question of the relation of religious education and -crime I cannot enter here. I have shown elsewhere that France, -Victoria, and New Zealand, the countries with longest experience of -secular education, have the best record among civilised nations in the -reduction of crime. The carelessness of clerical writers as to the -truth of their statements on this subject is appalling. There is not a -tittle of reason in criminal statistics, or any other exact -indications of national health, for retaining religious lessons in our -schools. They are there merely because the clergy find it conducive to -their prestige to have their sacred book enthroned with honour in the -national scheme of education. As in the case of divorce, they ask us -to maintain immorality in the name of religion. German schools are -saturated with religious teaching, yet we have seen the issue of it -all. -</p> - -<p> -For one hundred years our English school-system has been hampered and -perverted by this clerical insistence on religious lessons. Parents, -they sometimes say, desire it; but when the Trades Union Congress, the -only large body of parents which ever pronounced on the subject, -repeatedly voted for secular education, by overwhelming majorities, -the clergy, through the minority of their followers, could only secure -the exclusion of the subject from the agenda. Neither do the majority -of teachers desire it; while educationists, as a whole, resent this -grievous complication of their work. Nothing but the complete -secularisation of all schools receiving funds from the nation or -municipality will enable us to advance. The clergy must do their own -work on their own premises. The moral pretext is a thin disguise of an -effort to use the nation’s resources and authority for the purpose -of attaching children to the churches. -</p> - -<p> -Writers on the subject are not wholly agreed whether we ought to -substitute moral lessons for the discarded Bible lessons. We can in -such a matter proceed only on probabilities, and it seems to me that -judicious lessons for the training of character are very desirable. I -do not so much mean abstract or direct lessons on the various -qualities of character. If such lessons (on truthfulness, honesty, -manliness, etc.) were tactfully and sensibly conducted, they could be -of great service. There is really not much danger of turning the -average British schoolboy into a prig. But indirect lessons, -especially from history and biography, should be more effective. -</p> - -<p> -In either case our teachers would need special training for the -lessons, and no philosophic or religious or anti-religious view of -moral principles should be admitted. Experience has surely shown how -little use there is in giving children a “categorical imperative,” -or a set of arbitrary commandments, or an æsthetic lesson on -“modesty.” You cannot in one hour teach the child to think, and in -the next expect it to accept your instruction without thinking, -because you are not prepared to give reasons for your commands. It is -sometimes forgotten that even children share the mental awakening of -our age, and must be treated wisely. The American or the Australian -child well illustrates the change that is taking place. It is -increasingly dangerous to give children dogmatic or mystic instruction -in rules of conduct, nor is it in the least necessary to base this -important part of their training on disputable grounds. Every quality -of character that is inculcated may be related to the child’s actual -or future experience of life, and will find an ample sanction therein. -Life is full of material for such lessons: material far richer and -easier of assimilation than the doings of an ancient Oriental people -with a different code of morals. Let these lessons of history and -contemporary life be developed, let the child learn in plain human -speech the social significance of justice and honour, avoiding -namby-pamby dissertations on the beauty of virtue, and there will be -placed in the mind of the young, not an exotic plant which the child -will be tempted to eradicate, but a germ which will grow and bear -fruit under the influence of its own experience. -</p> - -<p> -The modern ideal of education further implies that the State shall -provide higher tuition for those youths and maidens to whom it will be -profitable to impart it. Scholastic evolution is advancing so rapidly -in this direction that the ideal hardly needs vindication. Seventeen -hundred years ago such a “ladder of education” existed in Europe; -from the municipally-endowed elementary school the promising youth -could pass, through secondary colleges, to the imperial schools at -Rome. Had that model been retained and improved instead of being -abandoned for fourteen centuries, Europe would be in an immeasurably -greater state of efficiency than it is. We are restoring and improving -the pagan model, and there are signs that in time we shall have a -complete system of secondary, technical, and higher education, quite -apart from the schools in which the children of more or less wealthy -parents learn their traditional virtues and vices. If we have also -some means by which able children whose talent has escaped the -academic eye (of which we have many classical instances) may in later -years have a chance of recognition, we shall exploit the intelligence -of the race with splendid results. -</p> - -<p> -The cost of this great reform need not intimidate us. Enormous sums of -money have been given (by men like Mr. Carnegie) or bequeathed for the -purpose, and the admirable practice will continue. But we need a -searching revision of educational endowments, foundations, -scholarships, etc. There is strong reason to suspect that estates -which are now of great value are not applied to the scholastic -purposes for which they were intended, or are badly administered, or -are used in giving gratuitous or cheap education to the children of -comfortable parents who secure favour or influence. A consolidation of -all the endowments which had not in their origin an express sectarian -purpose would provide a fund to which the State and municipal -authorities need add little. The scheme would bring some order into -our chaos of schools and colleges, and, while the more snobbish -establishments would continue to preserve their pupils from the -society of the children of tradesfolk, and would waste valuable -resources on uncultivable minds, the youth of the nation generally, of -both sexes, would be developed to the full extent of its capacity. -These things have a monetary value. A distinguished historical writer -told me that, on sending his son to Sandhurst, he proposed that they -should study together the campaigns of Napoleon. The youth presently -informed him that the traditions of Sandhurst did not allow them to do -serious work outside the general routine. A few years later we heard -the details of our South African War. -</p> - -<p> -It will be a part of this increased efficiency to rid our secondary -and higher schools of clerical domination. It is futile to say that -the clergyman must represent morals and religion in the school. His -record as a moralist during fifteen hundred years does not recommend -his services. Even to-day public schools which retain the tradition of -clerical masters are deplorable from the moral point of view. Some of -them are nurseries of a vice which, unless it be discontinued when the -youth goes out into the world, may bring on him one of the most -degrading sentences of our penal law. The clerical <i>method</i> of -character-training—one admits, of course, great occasional -personalities—has little influence on these things. Public-school -boys, and especially young men at our universities, know that every -syllable which the preacher addresses to them is disputed, and no -other ground of right and healthy conduct is, as a rule, impressed on -them. Many will know that the grossest opinion of the clergy -themselves is current in our public schools and older universities, -and is embodied in numbers of scurrilous stories. The position of the -clergyman in our educational world is false. He is there for the same -reason that the Bible is in the elementary school: in the interest of -the Churches. We have improved mental education enormously since it -ceased to be a monopoly of the clergy. Possibly we will make a similar -improvement in character-training; we can hardly do it with less -success than they have done. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch09"> -CHAPTER IX.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">THE EDUCATION OF THE ADULT</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">If</span> it be granted that it is the interest and the duty of a nation to -develop the intelligence of its people, we must conclude that the work -is only half done, or not half done, by even an ideal system of what -is commonly called education. I am assuming that a time will come when -no youth or maiden will enter workshop or office before the age of -seventeen, if not eighteen; and that the better endowed minority of -our children will, without regard to their private resources, be -promoted to secondary, technical, and higher schools. This minority -will, on the whole, need no further attention. Cultural interest and -professional stimulation will ensure that their studies continue. But -the majority will fall lamentably short of the ideal of developed and -alert intelligence. The added three or four years will be enormously -valuable to the teacher, but in the majority of cases the intellectual -interest will still be so feeble that the distractions of life will at -once extinguish it. -</p> - -<p> -If we speak of our actual world, not of an ideal world, this fact is -too patent to need proving. Forty-five years ago a band of enthusiasts -fought for the establishment of universal elementary education. The -survivors of that band confess that the splendid results they -anticipated have not been secured. One is, indeed, tempted sometimes -to wonder whether there was not more zeal for culture among the -workers half a century ago than there is to-day. When you listen to a -conversation, of workers or of average middle-class people, on -politics or theology or some other absorbing topic, you are astounded -at the slender amount of personal thinking and the slavery to phrases -which they have heard. Their minds seem to resemble the screen of a -kaleidoscope, on which the coloured phrases they have read in journals -or cheap literature weave automatic patterns. I speak, of course, of -the mass. I have given hundreds of scientific lectures to keen -audiences of working men, and I know that tens of thousands of them -have excellent collections of familiar books. But the result of -forty-five years of education is far from satisfactory. It was thought -that, when the people learned to read, and the ideas of an Emerson or -a Darwin could be appropriated by any man of moderate endowment, the -level of the race would rise materially. It has not risen as much as -was expected. The phrases are learned and repeated: the ideas are not -vitally assimilated, because the intellect is not sufficiently -developed. -</p> - -<p> -Two classes of people will impatiently retort that there is no need -for further development. One class consists of those who dread a -higher intelligence in the workers because it leads to discontent with -their condition. To which one may reply that this concern comes too -late. One needs little intelligence to perceive the inequalities of -the distribution of wealth. The workers of the world have perceived -it, and, although only an extreme Socialist minority demands -equalisation, the mass of the workers demand a higher reward. Midway -between Australia and England, on the deck of a liner, I heard a group -of middle-class men and women contrasting the menace of the Australian -workers with the industrial content of the mother-country. We landed, -to find from the journals that the whole United Kingdom was punctuated -by strikes, agitations, and demands. It is too late. A distinguished -Belgian prelate was taken into a large foundry, and, observing the -workers, he impulsively cried: “What a slave’s life!” “Hush, -they will hear you,” said the manager. In repeating the experience -he added: “They have heard: it is too late.” It will be better now -if, in the industrial struggle of the future, there is intelligence as -well as principle on both sides. If any large proportion of work in -the human economy requires the sacrifice of the intelligence, there is -something wrong with the work. -</p> - -<p> -Curiously enough, the other class of people who are impatient of the -design to stimulate their minds consists of the mass of the workers -themselves. After eight or nine or ten hours of heavy muscular work -every day, they say, they have no inclination or fitness for serious -literature, serious lectures, or serious art. They prefer a drink, a -bioscope, a music-hall. Eight hours’ work, eight hours’ play, -eight hours’ sleep; that is the ideal. A very natural and -symmetrical ideal, but—it is just the ideal which “the -capitalist” wishes them to cultivate, and this might suggest -reflection. Someone will do the thinking while they play. Democratic -government is a mischief and a blunder unless Demos is capable of -thinking. If the workers of the world have an ambition to control -their destinies, they must realise that their destinies are things too -large and complex and important to be controlled by men with sleepy -brains. There is no solution of the broad social problem of this -planet which does not imply that every adult man and woman, of normal -powers, shall be alert and informed and self-assertive enough to take -an intelligent part in its administration. -</p> - -<p> -Therefore, it seems to many that a scheme of education which ceases to -operate at the age of fourteen, which teaches children to read and has -no further concern with what they read, which impresses on their -cortex a mass of facts of no utility or stimulation, is not a -fulfilment of a nation’s duty, or a proper consideration of a -nation’s interest. The grander lessons of history, the more -impressive truths of science, the vital features of economics and -sociology, the ennobling characters of fine art, cannot be even -faintly impressed on the young mind. Yet they can be impressed on the -minds of nearly all adults, and it would be an incalculable gain to -the race if they were. What is being done, and what might be done, to -effect this? -</p> - -<p> -The nation at present leaves it to commercial interest and to -philanthropy to carry out, in some measure, this important function, -and we may at once eliminate the commercial interest. It supplies, at -a proper profit, what is demanded. A minority ask for cheap works of -science and art and history, and several admirable series of manuals -and serial publications are supplied. A majority, an overwhelming -majority, asks only to be entertained, and there is a mighty flood of -novels and amusing works, a rich crop of music-halls and -bioscope-shows and theatres and skating rinks. It will readily be -understood that, regarding happiness as the ultimate ideal, I regard -entertainment as a proper part of life. The comedian and the -story-teller and the professional football-player are rendering good -service, and it is intellectual snobbery to murmur that they “merely -entertain” people. A good deal of nonsense is written about sport -and entertainment. Many of us can, with pleasant ease, suspend a -severely intellectual task for a few hours to witness a first-class -football match. One wonders if some of the ascetics who speak about -“mudded oafs” and “the football craze” are aware that the game -(except for professional players) occupies merely an hour and a half a -week (or alternate week) for little more than half a year. -</p> - -<p> -The mischief is that so much of our entertainment appeals to and -fosters a state of mind or taste which does exclude culture. We have -to-day an army of puritan scouts, watching our music-halls and -cinematograph films, our picture-cards and novels, our open spaces by -night and our bathing-beaches by day, calculating minutely what amount -of dress or undress or sexual allusion they may permit. Certainly we -need coercion in these matters. No one who moves amongst our average -people, in any rank of society, can fail to recognise that there would -be in time a volcanic outpour of sexuality if we did not impose -restriction. Whether this chaste pruriency of the modern Churches is -an admirable thing, and whether its hirelings are a desirable -supplement to the police-force, need not be discussed here; but what -amuses one is their intense zeal to detect the narrowest fringe of -impropriety and their utter obtuseness to graver matters. I have -sometimes, when waiting before a lecture in the dressing-room of a -variety theatre, been confronted with a notice that “the curtain -will be rung down on any artist who says ‘Damn’ or mentions the -lodger,” or, more candidly (in the Colonies): “Don’t swear. We -don’t care a damn, but the public does.” The general public would, -if it were consulted, probably make the same reply as the framers of -the notice, and would blame the police for the restriction of liberty. -There is, in a word, an appalling poverty of taste in the general -public, and it pays the purveyor of entertainment to adapt his wares -to it as far as the police will permit. To this lamentable lack of -taste and culture (in the broad sense) officials and moralists are -entirely indifferent as long as the <i>comédienne</i> does not refer to -the seventh commandment. The public may be as ignorant and vulgar as -they like, but they must not give expression to a natural effect of -this. -</p> - -<p> -The music-hall and the bioscope are the great academies of our people -to-day, and their work is largely stupefying. Sentimental songs of the -most vapid description alternate with patriotic songs of a medieval -crudeness and humorous songs which might have appealed to a -prehistoric intelligence. Bloodthirsty melodramas, sensational scenes, -and infinite variations of “The girl who did what we are forbidden -to talk about,” evoke and inflame elementary emotions at the lowest -grade of culture. Clergymen give certificates of high moral efficacy -to crude representations of passion in high life which are designed to -appeal to raw feelings. The posters alone—the eccentric costumes and -daubed faces and attempts at novelty in the way of leering—warn away -people of moderate taste or intelligence. The bioscope is almost as -bad. Apart from a few excellent travel and scenic and scientific -pictures, the show is a mass of crude faking and boorish horse-play -which presupposes an elementary intelligence in the spectators. -Pictorial post-cards add to the monstrosities and puerilities of this -kind of public education, and a large proportion of the stories -published, especially in the periodicals which are read by girls and -boys and uneducated women, fall in the same category. We may trust -that the idea will not occur to anyone of making a collection of our -picture-cards, films, music-hall posters, novelties, etc., for -preservation as typical amusements of the twentieth century. -</p> - -<p> -It is stupid to watch this lamentable exposure of our low average of -culture week by week with complete indifference until more -underclothing is displayed than we think proper. The bioscope and -music-hall—I speak of the majority—are not merely entertaining; they -are undoing the work of the educator. They are fostering the raw and -primitive emotions which it is the task of education to refine and -bring under control, debasing public taste, and appealing to a -standard which is essentially unintellectual. The idea that fun may be -utterly stupid and crude, provided it is “clean,” is the idea of a -narrow-minded fanatic, an enemy of society. -</p> - -<p> -When we pass to the next cultural level of entertainment—the better -music-hall, the metropolitan type of theatre, the concert, the novel, -etc.—we have a vast provision of entertainment which amuses or -interests without cultural prejudice; rising at times to a positive -measure of artistic education or intellectual stimulation. Two things -only need be noticed here. The first is the stupidity of the kind of -censorship which we tolerate; of which little need be said, since it -is generally recognised. The amateur moral censorship of art reaches -the culmination of its absurdity in our dramatic inquisition. The -dramatist may deal with sex-passion as pruriently and provokingly as -he likes, provided he leaves enough to the spectator’s facile -imagination; but he must not attempt to raise love as an intellectual -issue. Our people may feel love: they must not think about it as a -serious problem. -</p> - -<p> -The other, and more needed observation, regards the novel. There are -novels of fine artistic value, like those of Phillpotts: novels of -great intellectual use, like those of Wells: and novels of a general -and more subtle educational value, like those of Meredith. There are -novels which, like the melodrama, counteract education by their low -standard of art and intelligence, and there are novels—the great -majority—which entertain without prejudice. Since we have as much -right to be entertained as to be instructed, novel-reading is a normal -part of a normal life. Seeing, however, that a very large proportion -of the community read nothing but novels, it has been felt that the -novel might be used as a vehicle of instruction, and the didactic or -historical novel has become an institution. Many believe that they are -being educated when they read this literature. -</p> - -<p> -Against this comforting assumption it is necessary to protest. Even -the greatest historical novelists, Dumas and Scott, have taken -remarkable liberties with the known facts, and added to the picture of -the time a mass of imaginative detail. Many historical novels, like -<i>Quo Vadis</i> or Kingsley’s <i>Hypatia</i>, misrepresent personalities or -periods for controversial purposes; and the bulk of modern historical -novels are worthless jumbles of fact and imagination. It is, as a -rule, the same with the sociological novel. You must know the facts in -advance—you must know where the facts end and the fiction begins—or -else merely regard the book as a form of entertainment. Lately I read -a serious historical work, by a distinguished writer, in which Hypatia -(who was fifty or sixty years old when she was murdered) is described -as a “girl-philosopher”; clearly because Kingsley, for -controversial purposes, thought fit in his novel to make her a young -and rather foolish maiden. Thousands of people take their convictions -from “novels with a purpose,” especially religious or sociological -novels, without reflecting that the author may legitimately give them -either fact or fiction. Such novels are often profoundly mischievous. -A conscientious didactic novelist like Mr. Wells aims rather at -raising issues and stimulating reflection, and in this Mr. Wells has -done splendid service. Others have done equal disservice, and have -used artificially constructed characters for the purpose of raising -prejudice against certain ideas, or have misled by a calculated -mixture of fact and fiction. It was in recommending to the public one -of these novels—an exceptionally silly and crude piece of work—that -the Bishop of London described Christianity as “woman’s best -friend.” -</p> - -<p> -Religious literature is particularly offensive in this respect, but I -will give special consideration to it later. Our press-criticism of -books is a very imperfect system of checking the vagaries and -prejudices of authors. The criticisms are very frequently marked by -ignorance of the subject and by personal or doctrinal hostility to the -author, while the more learned and conscientious journals often show -the most ludicrous pedantry. I once published a novel, pseudonymously, -and was amused to read in a London weekly, which takes great pride in -the smartness of its reviews, that the author had neither an -elementary knowledge of the art of writing nor an elementary -acquaintance with the subject on which he wrote. I had already at that -time written about twenty volumes, and I had had twelve years’ -intimate experience of the monastic life with which the book was -concerned. Mr. Clement Shorter, not knowing the author, had generously -described the book as “a brilliant novel.” On another occasion an -historical work of mine was gravely censured, though no specific -errors were noted in it, by our leading literary organ, on the ground -that I was not an expert on the period. I looked up the same -journal’s critique of a work written on the same historical period -by an academic authority, and published by his university, and I found -that, though there were dozens of errors in the work, it had passed -the censor with full honours. I add with pleasure that some of the -most generous notices of my works have appeared in papers (such as -<i>The Daily Telegraph</i> and <i>The Spectator</i>) to which my ideas must be -repugnant. But most literary men agree with me that reviewing is, to a -large extent, prejudiced and incompetent, and few of us would cross a -room to read ordinary press-notices of our books. -</p> - -<p> -One might extend this criticism to the general work of the press as -the great popular educator. We must, however, reflect that the press -is hampered by restrictions which the public ought to bear in mind: a -journal is always a commercial transaction with a particular section -of the public, and it is generally pledged to political partisanship. -It is only just to remark that this materially restricts the -educational ambition of many journalists. The public themselves are to -blame that a large section of our press devotes so much space to -sensational murders, adulteries, burglaries, royal births and -marriages, wars and other crimes and follies. Sunday journals often -contain twenty columns of this rubbish, and the worst parts of it are, -with the most disgusting hypocrisy, thrust into prominence by -especially large head-lines announcing “A Painful Case.” One -imagines the working man spending five or six hours of the Sabbath -reading this sort of stuff. Great and grave things, which he ought to -know, are happening all over the world, but he must have sharp eyes if -he is to catch the obscure little paragraphs which—if there is any -reference at all—tell him how many have been put to death in Russia -in the last quarter, or how the republican experiment fares in -Portugal, or how democracy advances in Australia or the United States. -The space is needed for pictures of burned mansions and notorious -murderers and the commonplace relatives of politicians, for verbatim -reports of divorce and criminal cases, for inquests and royal -processions, and for the magnificent speeches of Cabinet Ministers and -would-be Cabinet Ministers. -</p> - -<p> -This stricture applies to the press generally. How far it sacrifices -to these meretricious purposes the serious function of educating the -public has been painfully impressed on us by recent experience. Only -one or two journals in England surpassed our drowsy politicians in -sagacity and foresight. Though an extensive reader of German -literature (scientific and historical), it had never been my business -to follow political or military utterances; yet, when the war broke -out and I looked back on Germany’s enormous output in this -department, I realised that there had been in London for a year or two -enough German literature to convince any moderate observer that war -was fast approaching—and this was only a fragment of an enormously -larger literature. Our press had ridiculed the one or two men and -journals who warned the public of the danger. Further, when it -transpired that our Government had met the crisis with painful -slowness and inefficiency, nearly the whole press again conspired to -check criticism, and it is probable that when the war is over the -press will unite with the Churches in cultivating a foolish and -dangerous contentment on the part of the public. Our press is, in -fact, very largely an instrument of our corrupt party-system. It never -initiates reform, and it mirrors, day by day, all the crimes and -follies and maladies of our social order without the least resentment -or the faintest suggestion of reconstruction. Journals are constantly -appearing with the professed intention of correcting these defects, -yet they are almost invariably spoiled by illiberalism in one or more -departments of their work, or by gross exaggerations, hysterical -language, or impracticable proposals. -</p> - -<p> -All this is a reflection of the generally low state of public culture, -and it will not alter until we devote serious care to the education of -the general intelligence. We begin at school to cultivate the -child’s imagination, though it is the quality of a child’s mind -which least requires stimulating and is most in need of subordinating -to intelligence. In later years, when the feeble intellectual -stimulation we have given is exhausted, we have to appeal to the -imagination or go unheard. “I have not read a book since I left -school,” a music-hall artist observed to me. At twenty-five he had -become incapable of doing more than look at illustrations, as he had -done in his childhood. We go on until we make the imagination itself -feeble on its constructive side. Miles of generally dauby and -grotesque posters line our streets; tons of the trashiest literature -for the young are discharged from marble palaces in the neighbourhood -of Fleet Street; novels multiply until the general public takes the -words author and novelist to be synonymous; and the daily organ of the -millions tends more and more to be a collection of pictures of -unimportant events and persons, with a very slender and peculiar -quantity of news. -</p> - -<p> -If we agree that democracy will advance until the majority rule in -reality, and not merely in theory, these things must concern us. It is -of little use to point to the occasional periodical with small -circulation which endeavours to educate, to the occasional educative -column in more important journals, or to the occasional lecture or -serious concert or drama. The broad fact remains that our future -rulers are increasingly encouraged to refrain from mental cultivation, -to mistake an appeal to the imagination for knowledge, and to debase -their taste more and more with raw representations of crime and -passion. The working man reads with indignation of fashionable ladies -struggling to find a place in court when a man is being tried for a -series of sordid murders; and the working man then reads, day after -day, a three-column verbatim report of the trial, and regrets that -there is not more of it. -</p> - -<p> -In order to meet this grave public need an earlier generation invented -night-schools and Mechanics’ Institutes. Many of these still do -useful work, but their number shrinks rather than increases. The -Co-operative Movement, again, set up in the early days a fine ambition -to educate its adult members, but this ambition has not been generally -sustained in the vast modern movement. Hundreds of lecture-societies -were founded, and hundreds (about seven hundred in Great Britain, I -believe) exist to-day and do some excellent work; but many of the -societies which adhered most faithfully to the educational ideal are -in difficulties or extinct. The travel-lecture or funny lecture and -the “popular” concert encroach more and more on the serious -programme. Free libraries were another hope of the reformers of the -last generation, and they are now endowed by millionaires and -maintained by municipalities. They exhibit, perhaps, the saddest -perversion of social ambition. Neither Mr. Carnegie nor any serious -municipality thinks it a duty to provide gratuitous entertainment, but -at least two-thirds of their resources are really devoted to this. The -enormously greater part of the work of free libraries is to beguile -the idle hours of young men and the idle days of young women with -novels that rarely contain a particle of intellectual stimulation. -</p> - -<p> -Public museums were another device for educating the mass of the -people, and they have largely failed. There has been in recent years a -little more regard for the public, as well as for students, but it is -still painful to see crowds passing with bovine eyes amidst our -accumulated treasures. The grouping and labelling are still too -academic: the general scheme and the immense wealth of detail daze the -eye of the inexpert. More guides and lecturers, in touch with and -informally accessible to the public, and a closer association with -University Extension and Gilchrist and other lectures, are very much -needed. Saturday afternoon in the British Museum is a melancholy -spectacle of wasted wealth. A small model museum, designed solely for -the education of the general public, would be more useful in this -respect than our magnificent national museum. Unfortunately, the small -museums copy the academic defects of the larger. The curator of one, -on whom I urged the needs of the public, replied wearily: “Well, it -will take me three years to arrange my Cephalopods, and then I will -see what I can do.” -</p> - -<p> -We need a comprehensive and serious organisation and development of -our resources for educating the adult. Our Education Department needs -to throw out a new wing with the purpose of preventing the utter waste -of its work upon young children. Institutions like the British Museum -ought to be relieved of the control of the Archbishop of Canterbury -and one or two other somnolent gentlemen, and made the centre of a -splendid and energetic system of popular instruction and stimulation. -From such centres the educational officials (as distinct from learned -curators and youths from Oxford and Cambridge who look upon the public -as a nuisance) might issue attractive invitations and publications, -and be prepared to welcome the non-student, either with “showmen” -who understand the public mind or by a general and affable -accessibility of the whole staff. Municipal museums and libraries and -picture-galleries could be organised on similar lines by the -Department, and useful private foundations, such as the Bishopsgate -Institute, could be invited to co-operate, without interference in -their management. The supply of novels ought to be restricted to the -great masters of every country and a few moderns. The rich supply of -serious literature ought to be made attractive and easily accessible -to the public by good bibliographical guidance and constant lectures. -These things are, of course, being done. It is not so much the local -officials one quarrels with as the nation and its leaders. We want an -immense co-ordination and development of our resources and efforts out -of national funds. Lecture-societies and all kinds of educative -centres and institutes—there are thousands in the country—need to be -affiliated, encouraged, advised, and supplemented. The State should -not even shrink from publishing. The trade supplies only the actual -demand: the State must create a new and larger demand. Music would be -an integral part of this scheme of education, and here again we have a -large material ready for organisation. -</p> - -<p> -Any man who has engaged in the work of educating and stimulating the -general public will realise how urgently some such scheme is needed, -and how splendid a service it would render. He will realise also that -the task will be formidable. I do not for a moment conceive the -general public as thirsting for culture. That is very largely due to -the way in which the work has hitherto been done. The recent success -of small but authoritative manuals of science and history, and of -several cheap series of literary works of high value, shows that a -fairly large public responds to every enlightened effort to assist -them. It will become very much larger when the work is organised on a -national scale and conceived as a really important function of the -State. That even then the majority of the nation would rush to the -reconstructed libraries and museums and lecture or concert-halls no -one will imagine for a moment. We do not undo in a few years the -effect of centuries of evil traditions. I am assuming, however, that -these various reforms I am discussing will proceed more or less -simultaneously, and will enormously assist each other. The abolition -of war would release rich funds for educational purposes: the -reorganisation of industry would provide a little more leisure and -capacity for mental recreation: other reforms would give a general -intellectual stimulation. Even now, however, much of this work could -be done. If we think it sufficient that our people remain in a -condition of elementary literacy and half-developed intelligence, if -we fancy that the <i>race</i> will advance because it sets aside a special -caste of scholars for the promotion of culture, we may regard our -actual situation without concern. But if we desire that general -alertness of mind and decision of character which a democratic rule -implies, we cannot be indifferent. Aristocrats justly rail at the -democracy of Athens and Rome; it was an uneducated -democracy—literate, but uneducated, like ours. We need to advance, if -we are not to recede; and the uplifted race of the days to come will -honour the generation that taught men the compatibility of culture and -entertainment. -</p> - -<p> -I am speaking, in the main, of the mass of the workers, but it would -be entirely unjust to insinuate that they alone need adult education. -The conventions of social life, the extraordinary slavery to fashions -and artificial rules, betray an intellectual flabbiness in the -wealthier members of society which just as urgently calls for -stimulation. We seem at times quite incapable of drawing a line -between acts of real courtesy and taste, which imply a certain grace -or delicacy of character, and conventional usages which have no -rational basis. The insistence on these conventional usages is part of -that general slavery to false traditions which I am assailing. -</p> - -<p> -The most flagrant instance of this weakness of mind and character is -the docility with which we meet changes of fashion in dress, or retain -eccentric forms of clothing. Hardly any other feature so strongly -impresses the close observer with the fact that the race, as a whole -(and I speak only of civilised communities), advances little in -intelligence and self-possession in spite of the progress made by its -intellectual experts. One would say that here, especially, we need a -strong draught of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche,—the gospel -of self-assertion, of strong personality, of severe reasoning,—but I -have not observed that our modern Nietzscheans differ much from their -neighbours in such matters. Yet the commercial expansion of modern -times is making this tyranny of fashion more ludicrous than it ever -was before. -</p> - -<p> -The fashion-plates and descriptions contained in ladies’ journals -have always provoked the furtive smile of the male. A coterie of -tradesmen, who are eager to promote business, and of wealthy ladies -who are equally eager to show that their purses are unlimited, decree -that the hat or costume shall continually vary in shape and colour. -The Anglo-French jargon of the sartorial journalist then impresses on -a larger circle of ladies the need of alertness and the horror of -being <i>démodée</i>,—it would be proof of incapacity to say “out of -fashion,”—and, as the season approaches, the proclamation of the -forthcoming colour or model is awaited with more feverish anxiety than -the announcement of the national budget. Schools of artists are -secretly inventing some variation—the wider the variation the -better—on the thousands of costumes which have already graced the -feminine frame, or discussing bold suggestions of reviving an ancient -model which has long disappeared even from the shops of -wardrobe-dealers. Privileged ladies rise in prestige by obtaining and -whispering advance information. At length the shop-windows blaze with -the new colour, the journals depict an ingenious new combination of -edges and folds and puckers, and womanhood plunges to the bottom of -its purse with an eagerness to avoid the suspicion of financial -stringency; while the discarded hats and dresses percolate -romantically through lower strata of society. Is it not good for -trade? -</p> - -<p> -The masculine smile is, however, wearing thinner, as the absurd -despotism is now almost as great among the stronger sex. Here also a -group of commercial mathematicians evolve, every few months, a new -combination of brim and crown and curve, and artists design new -patterns of cloth and new contours of garment, and tyrannical -journalists hold up to public execration the man of means or position -who dares to find last year’s fashion sufficiently comfortable or -decorative. “Not worn now, sir,” says the shopman, with indulgent -smile, when you go to renew the hat or coat that has pleased you. The -bewildering thing is, not that manufacturers should be eager to sell -us new garments every few weeks, but that we bow with such docility to -this ludicrous fiction of monarchy. Long trousers or short trousers, -creased trousers or turned-up trousers, tight coats or loose coats, -bowlers or trilbys—we listen submissively to the mandate, without the -least consideration of our appearance or convenience. -</p> - -<p> -Indeed, the only things that are permanent in this extravagant -procession of fashions are the things that are ugly, inconvenient, or -unhealthy, especially on the masculine side. The silk hat and the hard -felt hat linger as if in these extraordinary creations the -manufacturer had discovered the ideal head-covering. The swallow-tail -coat survives as if æsthetics could advance no further in the -attiring of wealthy men; even the buttons at the back, to which our -fiery ancestor attached his sword, must not be abandoned. The more -comfortable dinner-jacket remains a privileged client at the gate -until some audacious peer or prince will dispel the oppressive -reverence for the ancient swallow-tail; and peers and princes know how -dangerous it is to tamper with the spirit of reverence. The starched -collar and shirt are as rigidly prescribed as sacred vestments on high -occasions. The lady must still hang a thick and heavy screen of cloth -from her hips; first having it made too long and then holding it up -with her hand in order to escape the rich organic deposit on our -streets and the filth with which we suffer “domestic pets” to make -our squares hideous. Her abdominal organs must, if one may credit the -marvellous photographs published by the corset-makers, be -reconstructed every few years to accommodate the latest scheme of -body-curves. And from these upper reaches of our intellectual world, -the tyranny descends through level after level of the community until -it lays its last stern injunctions on the junior clerk and the -post-office assistant; or passes beyond the seas and compels the -Chinaman or the Japanese to discard his beautiful robe in favour of a -frock-coat and silk hat, or a striped tweed and bowler, when he -presents himself at the entrance-gate to civilisation. -</p> - -<p> -We find an almost equally ludicrous tyranny of tradition or fashion in -almost every part of the ritual of social life. Twenty years ago I -issued from a rite-bound monastery into the free life of the world, to -find it similarly swathed in ritual bonds. I purchased, and stealthily -mastered, the “ceremonial” (as we used to call our rite-book) of -this new world—a book on “etiquette”—and led for some months a -strenuous and exacting life. I entered drawing-rooms with a nervous -recollection of about a score of rules that had to be observed in the -first five minutes, while the ritual of the mundane table entailed for -a long time a good deal of furtive observation of my fellows and -trembling under the butler’s eye. To this day I am not quite clear -at what precise angle the elbow must stand in shaking hands. Social -life is overspread by a network of these prescriptions of the -unwritten law or the judicial decisions of the aristocracy which we -call “manners.” There is, as a rule, so little discrimination -between the formal rules of an artificial code and the real impulses -of a gentlemanly nature that one has often to listen gravely and -silently while ladies commend the “perfect manners” of a man whom -one knows to be an adventurous ninny or a beast. -</p> - -<p> -We need a new conception of civilisation, a sustained stimulation of -the intelligence throughout life, a strong infusion of the Nietzschean -gospel of personality and self-assertion. Some day we shall regard -education as half of the nation’s serious business, and will devote -half our national revenue to it. Let it not be imagined that this -suggests a generation of dour and frightfully serious people who never -smoke or play bridge. I omit the function of entertainment only -because it has never been neglected. The supreme business of a State -is to make its people happy, strong, and prosperous. We shall approach -the ideal when we abolish war and reduce pauperism and crime by -registering all workers, organising all industry, reforming justice -and the penal system, and removing the morally diseased. -</p> - -<p> -In those days education will be a vast, humane, scientific scheme for -guiding the growth of human embryos into industrious and orderly -citizens, and enabling the adult citizen pleasurably to cultivate his -mind and taste. The development of each child will be followed as the -development of a pupil is followed in the Jesuit Society, but with a -care to develop its individuality fully, in harmony with the -individualities of others. The child will not pass from the sphere of -the educator at puberty, with unformed mind and character, to swell -the great army of the intellectually listless. Ruskin’s noble ideal -of “as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed, and -happy-hearted human creatures” will replace the narrow standards of -our Education Department, with which the child can have no sympathy. -From the first dawn of intelligence it will feel that a well-wishing -parent, the community, is training it to derive all the joy it can -from life, consistently with the joy of others and the day’s duties, -when its turn comes to don the <i>toga virilis</i>. It will have learned by -that time that a development of its characteristic human powers is the -richest possession it can have, and, coming to adolescence, will not -at once cast aside the work of the teacher and dissipate its energy in -the crude indulgence of elementary passions and futile imaginings. -Neither child nor adult will shrink from work which stimulates the -intelligence or refines the taste, and a fine alert race, impatient of -untruth, injustice, and suffering, will set itself to develop fully -the resources of this planet. -</p> - - -<h3 id="ch10"> -CHAPTER X.<br/> -<span class="chapsubtitle">THE CLERICAL SHAM</span> -</h3> - -<p class="noindent"> -<span class="sc">Throughout</span> the preceding chapters there have been resentful or -disdainful references to the Churches, and it may be suspected that, -in assailing other people’s prejudices, I have cherished and -proceeded upon the anti-clerical prejudice. A very cursory examination -will, however, suffice to show that these criticisms were sound and -pertinent, and are not due to some mysterious antipathy to the -profession to which I once belonged. Few of those ugly or mischievous -traditions which form what I have called the smothering ash in the -intellectual activity of the nation have not the general support of -the clergy. Few of the reforms here suggested do not meet their -hostility. They constitute one of the most injurious conservative -forces in modern life. Their bodies are strewn over the whole -battlefield of the nineteenth century, and not one in a thousand of -them fought on the side of progress. The esteem in which they are -still widely held and the pretexts by which they guard this esteem are -the last, and by no means the least, of those shams which hamper our -advance and distract our energy. -</p> - -<p> -A full and detailed indictment of the clergy would fill several -columns, and I must confine myself here to two or three considerations -which are at once sufficiently drastic and easily demonstrable. I will -therefore be content to show: -</p> - -<p> -1. That the clergy claim and receive a large measure of public -confidence on the ground that they are the guardians of the most -sacred and beneficent truths, yet impose on the less educated masses -a preposterous collection of untruths, or statements which many of -their own scholars, and most lay scholars, regard as untrue. -</p> - -<p> -2. That the clergy pose as the most sensitive and effective custodians -of our morals, yet their procedure is unjust, spiteful, and deceptive -to an extent which would not be tolerated in any lay profession. -</p> - -<p> -3. That the clergy represent that their creed civilised Europe and is -necessary for the maintenance of its civilisation, yet their influence -and their ideas retarded the evolution of European civilisation for -centuries, and retard it to-day wherever they have sufficient power or -are immune from weighty criticism. -</p> - -<p> -In enumerating the untruths which are still imposed by the clergy, I -will not linger over the Old Testament. When you censure them to-day -for attaching a sacred value to this collection of ancient Jewish -literature, they are apt to reply that your criticism is forty years -out of date. Every educated clergyman, they exclaim, now acknowledges -that the Old Testament is a mixture of Babylonian legends, primitive -tribal traditions, and moral literature of a naïve and very -interesting description. Whether this statement is true or no I must -leave to the judgment of those who have a closer acquaintance with the -modern clergy. Only two years ago I was persuaded, in an idle hour on -a liner, to listen to a sermon delivered by a young clergyman who had -just issued, with honours, from a highly modern Wesleyan college. It -was on the miracles of Moses in the wilderness—ingeniously relieved -by references to such other miracles as the appearance of a cross to -Constantine—and accepted them as literally as did Peter the Hermit. -Religious periodicals and books and parish-magazines suggest that -there is a good deal still of this medieval credulity; or that, at -least, the number of “educated clergymen” must be somewhat -restricted. But let us accept the assurance that the educated clergy -do accept the Old Testament at its true historical value. In which -case we must be content to express our surprise that no clergyman -seems to have the least scruple about imposing these things on young -children, and rustic congregations, and less cultivated races—than -which there is no more cowardly form of untruth: and that some of the -most notoriously unreliable and barbaric pages of the Old Testament -are read, Sunday by Sunday, as “the word of God” in all the -Christian Churches of the world, under the official orders of every -ecclesiastical authority in the world. -</p> - -<p> -However, since these cultivated ecclesiastics smile at our criticism -of the Old Testament, and see nothing improper in a deception of the -ignorant, of which any body of professional laymen would be incapable, -let us turn to the New Testament. It is always useful to consider the -attitude of the clergy in its historical perspective. A hundred years -ago they were defending against the Deists the absolute truthfulness -of the Old Testament. Christ had promised the Holy Spirit to the -Church: the Holy Spirit could not possibly tolerate untruth: therefore -the teaching of the Church for sixteen centuries must be right. Within -two generations they have, in a great number, abandoned the inerrancy -of the Old Testament, without abandoning the Holy Spirit. It seems -only the other day when Cardinal Newman pleaded wistfully that we were -not compelled, under pain of eternal damnation, to believe that -Tobit’s dog did really wag its tail. However, outside Scotland -clergymen do seem to be free to form their own opinions on such -allegations as that a whale swallowed a man and housed him for three -days. But in thus admitting that “inspiration” was consistent with -error, they have put the New Testament also in the hand of the critic. -</p> - -<p> -It is well to remember, too, that this modern criticism of the Bible -is conducted almost entirely by divines. The average churchgoer has an -impression that these terrible people who are known as “the Higher -Critics” are anti-clerical laymen: possibly lascivious gentlemen -whose real ambition is to undermine the salutary discipline imposed by -the Churches. They are, of course, on the contrary, nearly all -ordained clergymen, and very conscientious clergymen, of some branch -of the Church. Rationalists never criticise the Bible. It has become a -branch of theological scholarship. I once—having been challenged by -the local clergyman, who promptly disappeared when I arrived—gave a -lecture on the divinity of Christ to an audience of Presbyterian -artisans, and assured them that the views and arguments I put before -them were taken solely from the works of distinguished and highly -honoured theologians. Their amazement and horror were most amusing. -They had not the dimmest idea that controversy on these points lay -merely between advanced and not-advanced members of the Christian -clergy; and that their local oracle had, in effect, merely been -imposing on them the opinions of the less learned divines in -opposition to the more learned. -</p> - -<p> -And this fact dispenses me from the need to drag the reader into the -somewhat tiring labyrinth of proof and disproof which these warring -theologians have constructed. Nothing could be further from my mind -than the presumptuous and immodest wish to brand the clergy as -dishonest, and their beliefs as superstitious, because I happen to -regard those beliefs as false. Let the position be clearly understood. -A study of the <i>Hibbert Journal</i> or any scholarly theological -periodical, or of any batch of learned theological works, will apprise -any person that what are ordinarily conceived to be the fundamental -positions of the Christian religion are challenged by a large -proportion of distinguished divines. Pleas of “reconstruction” are -constantly put before us; and at the Church of England Congress in -1912 it was plainly decided by the presiding Archbishop of York that -the “advanced” theologians had a legitimate place in the Church. -It is not a question of a few controverted points in the scheme of -Christian doctrine. No point that is specifically Christian is left -unchallenged. The divinity and miracles—especially the miraculous -birth and resurrection—of Christ, the prophecies, the doctrine of -heaven and hell, the divine guidance of the Church, the fall and -redemption of man—all these characteristic doctrines are gravely -disputed within the frontiers of the Churches themselves, wherever -freedom of expression is permitted. -</p> - -<p> -One would prefer to rely on theologians only in such a matter, but for -my purpose it is not immaterial to add that outside the ranks of the -clergy scholarship is overwhelmingly against these doctrines. There -has been a good deal of unsubstantial talk about the beliefs of living -men of intellectual eminence, but resolute efforts have been made of -late years to wring from them a profession of Christian belief, and -the result has been so meagre that my statement is fully justified. A -large number declare that they are on the side of “religion.” But -one has only to reflect that even Sir Oliver Lodge warmly professes to -be a Christian—and is, in fact, welcomed to read the lessons in -church—to see how little is conveyed by such expressions. The supreme -effort of the Churches to secure adhesions of this kind is probably -found in Mr. Tabrum’s <i>Religious Beliefs of Scientists</i> (1910), and -a study of that extraordinary jumble of the living and the dead, the -distinguished and the obscure, the really believing Christians and the -men who are notoriously not, will convince any person of the failure -of the Churches to obtain the literal adhesion of even a respectable -proportion of our distinguished men: not men of science merely—it is -a stupid error to suppose that the decay of faith is more or less -confined to them—but men of eminence in any department of research or -intellectual life. Not one in ten of them, in any educated country of -the Christian world to-day, has ever professed a belief in the -doctrines or statements I have enumerated; and vague professions of a -regard for religion do not concern me here. -</p> - -<p> -Now I am, as I said, not passing any personal opinion on these -Christian teachings: I am merely drawing attention to their position -in modern life. The uncultivated masses and the body of the clergy who -preach to these masses accept the miraculous birth, death, -resurrection, and all the rest, quite implicitly. Here and there one -finds a preacher who dissents; I am speaking of the mass. At the -middle level of mental culture, among both clergy and laity, dissent -becomes much more frequent. At the highest level of theological -scholarship it would be fair to say that the dissenters are almost, if -not quite, as numerous as the believers; and at the higher level of -lay culture, where opinions may be more freely formed and expressed, -the dissenters are the overwhelming majority. These men may be theists -or agnostics or Christians in the broader sense of the word, but the -great majority of them do not believe in these distinctively Christian -doctrines. Yet the Churches, wherever they are not kept in check by -this critical element, invest these doctrines with the most sacred and -confident character: stamp them as unquestioned truths on the minds of -children and uneducated people, and put them forward as their official -and authoritative doctrines. Nay, there is hardly a theologian in any -church who does not, when Christmas and Easter annually occur, lend -his official and most solemn countenance to these discarded or -disputed traditions. -</p> - -<p> -This would not, could not, be done in any branch of lay culture. One -may justly insist on one’s opinion in any disputed theme, but what -would be the attitude of our leaders of culture if any authoritative -historian, philosopher, or scientist attempted to impose on the -inexpert, as an unquestioned truth, some older opinion which a large -proportion of the expert regarded as false or questionable? What would -they say to a responsible teacher in one of these branches of lay -culture who read certain statements to those who trusted him, and said -within his own mind: “This is what people thought a thousand years -ago”? A clergyman told me that it was with this mental reservation -that he read the creeds and gospels on Sundays. What would a -philosopher, or historian, or scientist say, if his department of -culture were an organic association with a public and authoritative -teaching, and this public teaching contained statements which a large -proportion of the leading representatives regarded as false? And what -would he say to any colleagues who urged him to allow these things to -stand because a change might lessen the respect of the general public -for their authority? -</p> - -<p> -This situation reflects gravely on the character of Christian -ministers. One need not attempt the futile task of estimating what -proportion of the clergy believe the things they teach, but we are -constantly receiving proof, especially posthumous proof, that large -numbers of them do not. I have been severely rebuked for suggesting -such a thing, but when I find a group of young Oxford divines saying -plumply, in an important recent work (<i>Foundations</i>), that Christian -theology is “out of harmony with science, philosophy, and -scholarship,” I can only say that I trust a sufficient number of the -clergy are educated enough to know it. The majority of the clergy are, -however, sufficiently ignorant of “science, philosophy, and -scholarship” to be in good faith, and one ought not to press the -indictment in this sense. At sea I listen occasionally, from some safe -distance, to sermons, and am amazed that even a fair proportion of the -passengers can sit with grave faces during the delivery of such empty -and ignorant vapourings. One reflects that all over the Christian -world priests are similarly dogmatising on the most profound problems -of life, and not one in a thousand of them has an elementary knowledge -of those branches of modern research which a public guide ought to -command. It is not the decay, but the survival, of churchgoing that -perplexes one. -</p> - -<p> -There is, however, another aspect of the matter which requires serious -attention. There have been, from the earliest ages of the Christian -Church, men of superior intelligence and independent character who -refused to submit to the dictation of the clergy. There is no need to -recall how the clergy dealt with them. Christian ministers have in -this regard the most abominable record in the whole history of -civilised religion. Some day it will be put side by side with that of -the priests of Saturn or of Quetzalcotl, who offered human sacrifices. -All that need be noted here is the effrontery with which modern -clerical writers defend their predecessors. If the principles on which -they base their defence are valid, they would again be compelled to -burn heretics if they obtained power. The Church of Rome is bold -enough to acknowledge this. Huxley tells how his distinguished -Catholic friend, Dr. J. Ward, warmly assented to this, but we have had -since then a more authoritative indication. A work of Canon Law which -was published at Rome under the “enlightened” rule of Leo XIII., -and with his emphatic personal approval—the <i>Institutiones Juris -Canonici</i> of Father de Luca—proves at length the duty of the Church -to put to death heretics. -</p> - -<p> -However, we will not waste rhetoric over the past or over an -impossible future. What policy have the modern clergy, who are unable -to induce the State to burn dissenters, substituted for that of their -predecessors? A policy that is, to a very great extent, unjust, -spiteful, and dishonourable: a policy that, in the very name of truth, -is marked by a more flagrant indifference to truth than you will find -in any other reputable department of modern life. -</p> - -<p> -The first feature of this policy will be seen by any generally -informed person who will take the trouble to read a batch of religious -works or periodicals. He will find numbers of statements of the most -amazing inaccuracy. It is, no doubt, an exceptional thing for a -clerical writer to make a statement which is, to his conscious -knowledge, untrue. The very suggestion seems prejudiced, but is there -a vast difference between imposing official untruths on ignorant -congregations and supporting these untruths by others? The constant -repetition of these ancient and discredited formulæ does not induce a -very punctilious temper in regard to truth. If it is quite lawful to -repeat from the Old or the New Testament historical statements which -are not true or are gravely disputed, why not other historical -statements which have got into ecclesiastical currency? -</p> - -<p> -Usually, however, the attitude of the writer seems to be one of -culpable indifference to the truth or untruth of the statements he -makes. He finds in some previous writer a statement which supports his -case, and he reproduces it without inquiry. If he were a mere layman, -engaged in some branch of profane culture, he would not dare to -repeat, without further inquiry, statements which he found made in his -own sectarian interest by men of no high authority or original -scholarship. The clergy, however, do this habitually, and one is -compelled to conclude that they are more or less indifferent about the -truth of their assertions, if those assertions are favourable to -religion. Just as I write the press reports Dr. R. F. Horton telling -a congregation that a British regiment was saved at Mons by the -appearance of a legion of angels, and assuring his audience that this -silly myth is “repeated by so many witnesses that if anything can be -established by contemporary evidence it is established.” The story -has gone the round of our pulpits and religious press. -</p> - -<p> -I am speaking, however, from a particularly wide experience of -religious literature. For thirty years—ten years as a clerical -student or professor, and twenty years as an interested observer of -religious controversy—I have devoted much time to books and journals -of this kind, and I repeat that there is no other branch of literature -so flagrantly inaccurate and unscrupulous. A religious periodical -(<i>The Christian World</i>, 20th August 1903), in the course of an -editorial on “Candour in the Pulpit” (meaning lack of candour in -the pulpit), said: “A foremost modern theologian, by no means of the -radical school, has recorded his significant judgment that one of the -main characteristics of apologetic literature is its lack of honesty; -and no one who has studied theology can doubt that it has suffered -more than any other science from equivocal phraseology.” When a -journal which has to consult the feelings of a large backward -clientele uses this language, we may conclude that the situation is -really bad. In fact, not even political journalism betrays such gross -carelessness as to the truth of the statements with which it assails -its opponents. “The more sacred our ideas are, the more savagely we -fight for them,” said Mr. Chesterton, defending the Inquisition. Mr. -Chesterton’s own genial method (except that one recognises the taint -in his <i>Victorian Age in Literature</i>) disproves his aphorism. There is -not the slightest excuse for the gross procedure of religious writers. -</p> - -<p> -I have in various works and articles given hundreds of examples of -this procedure, and will be content to deal summarily with two of the -chief types of misrepresentation—those relating to history and those -relating to science. The classical examples in history are the -clerical legends about the morality of the pagans. Here the clerical -lie goes on its way from age to age without the slightest regard of -the progress of historical research. Discoveries in the ruins (such as -the Hammurabi Code, temple-literature, etc.) and a closer scrutiny of -the sources used by the Greek historian Herodotus have made it quite -clear that the old Mesopotamian civilisations were comparable to ours -in moral sentiment and practice. Instead of women having to sacrifice -their virginity in the temples at Babylon, we have abundant evidence -that chastity was demanded and valued in brides, and that the priests -insisted on purity. Every other moral sentiment was equally developed. -We find the same high moral development in Egypt. All this is -disregarded, and the superiority of the Hebrew and Christian sacred -books is maintained by a resolute propagation of ancient fables. -</p> - -<p> -In regard to Greece and Rome the practice is even worse. The -exceptional features of their life are described as normal and general -features, and the very abundant literature which has put in its true -light the character of Athens and Rome is completely ignored. Special -periods of vice under bad emperors (who, in the aggregate, ruled only -seventy years out of three hundred and twenty) are spread over the -whole of Roman history. The gossip and democratic rhetoric of Juvenal -are pressed literally, in spite of the judgment of all serious -historians. The works which exhibit the better side of Rome, and the -inscriptions which show a very high degree of character and -humanitarianism under the Stoics, are wholly suppressed. The balanced -verdict of modern historians is scandalously flouted. At all costs it -must be shown that Europe needed regeneration, and that Christian -morality was far superior to pagan; and so the clergy continue, in -spite of protests from some of their own lay scholars (Emil Reich, for -instance), to draw a flagrantly untruthful picture of the morals of -Greece and Rome. -</p> - -<p> -But this misrepresentation is venial in comparison with the -misrepresentation of later European history. The clerical story of the -moral change that came over Europe when it embraced Christianity is -one of the grossest impostures ever laid on the human mind. Even -clerics like Dean Milman sufficiently refuted it decades ago, but it -flourishes as profitably as ever. From the pulpit of St. Paul’s to -the tin chapels of Mudville it is one of the most treasured -traditions, and perhaps no picture is more familiar to Christian -audiences than that of Rome, drunk with its vices, reeling to the foot -of the cross and embracing sobriety. It is a calculated clerical myth -in every line. The Stoics reformed Rome at a time when the Christians -were a mere handful of obscure people, and the magnificent work done -and institutions set up by the Stoics were not sustained by the -Church. Even in regard to the persecutions the clergy still repeat the -legend which modern historians recognise as based on a mass of -medieval forgeries. Civilisation sank rapidly until it touched the -depth of the early Middle Ages, and, as Milman candidly recognised, -the claim that at least virtue increased is the reverse of the truth. -The Church did not denounce or abolish slavery: it discouraged -education: it abased woman: it set back a thousand years the -development of culture. Yet our clerical writers repeat the medieval -falsehoods as fluently as if modern history did not exist. -</p> - -<p> -The later period is just as grossly falsified by Catholic writers, but -here the Protestant—who has somehow convinced himself that the Holy -Spirit abandoned Europe to the devil for a thousand years—begins to -cry for candour. Much of the Protestant literature is uncritical and -unscrupulous in its use of authorities; it is, however, instructive in -comparison with the kind of history purveyed by the “Catholic Truth -Society.” There is hardly a candid historian in the Church, even in -Germany and the United States. The latest historian of the Papacy, Dr. -L. Pastor, is certainly entitled to respect for his effort, though -even he does not present all the facts; while men like Cardinal -Gasquet are appallingly one-sided. I am, however, thinking mainly of -the “popular” literature, on which no stricture could be too -severe. Indeed, when it comes to the modern period, both Protestant -and Catholic literature is scandalous. One often finds Voltaire, -Rousseau, and Paine described as “atheists,” and the most slovenly -observations on the Revolution. Roosevelt’s description of Paine as -a “dirty little atheist” is a good indication of the kind of -literature that even an educated religious man may read. -</p> - -<p> -On the scientific side the inaccuracy and carelessness are just as -great, but the field is too vast for consideration here. The conflict -in regard to evolution has produced an extraordinary literature on the -clerical side, and, to the amusement of students of science, it still -flows from the religious press and refreshes suburban faith. Men who -have never devoted a month to the study of science engage in conflict -with the most authoritative masters of biology, and thrill their -ignorant followers with the vigour and dexterity of their fencing. -These Jesuit and other writers have, of course, set up a lay-figure -for their valiant attacks. They misrepresent the views and motives of -the man they oppose, give garbled quotations from his works, and -support their own antiquated positions by quotations from scientific -men who lived in the earlier phases of the controversy. No trick is -more common in this class of literature than to justify obsolete -statements by quoting “authorities” who died long ago, and leaving -the inexpert reader to suppose that they are modern men of science; -while clerics who could not distinguish a palæolithic from a -civilised skull write pompous essays on such subjects as the evolution -of man. Works of this kind circulate by the hundred in the churches -even to-day, literally deluding millions of people, while the works of -more expert writers are denounced as “against religion” and unfit -to read. -</p> - -<p> -Still more flagrant is the clerical behaviour in rebutting the general -belief that men of science have for the most part abandoned -Christianity. They—with the support of a man like Sir O. Lodge—talk -glibly of the death of “Victorian materialism” and the rebirth of -spiritualism; whereas Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, Darwin, Clifford, -Lewes, and every other Victorian man of science repudiated -materialism. When you ask who the modern men are who have abandoned -the views of the Huxleian generation and come to favour religion, they -produce an extraordinarily confused list of names. I have referred to -their <i>magnum opus</i> in this department, Tabrum’s <i>Religious Beliefs -of Scientists</i>. It actually includes two prominent members of the -Rationalist Press Association; while men like Lodge and Wallace and -Crookes are included among the more orthodox. Of late years it is the -fashion to impress ignorant congregations with the names of W. James, -Eucken, and Bergson; whereas James and Bergson are not even theists, -and Eucken professes a form of theism which any Church would heatedly -repudiate. The members of the various sects are literally and most -scandalously duped on this point. -</p> - -<p> -I have claimed that the clergy are spiteful and unjust, as well as -careless about truth. There are very few popular religious writers who -seem capable of giving a correct account of the views they are -criticising, and there are very many who manipulate quotations with -the effect of grossly deceiving their readers. Worse still, the clergy -habitually slander their critics, and these slanders live for years in -spite of refutation. Seven years ago they began to circulate a silly -and obviously incredible charge that Professor Haeckel “forged” -illustrations in support of his case, and, though the libel was at -once thoroughly refuted by Professor Schmidt, it is still current. -Only a few months ago I received from India documents which showed -that the Jesuits there were still insisting on it. A friend of mine -informed me that he heard one Scottish preacher, in the course of a -public lecture on Haeckel, assure his audience, on the authority of a -“friend of Haeckel’s,” that that venerable scientist was a man -of most licentious life! No charge is too gross to repeat, if it -discredits an “enemy of the faith.” Dozens of times I have heard -of the wildest calumnies about myself which circulate throughout the -English-speaking world, because I have occasionally written a critical -work (always grossly misrepresented in the Catholic press) about the -Catholic Church. I never belonged to the Catholic priesthood: I was -discharged from it for fraud: I left it in order to marry a nun I had -seduced: and so on. Only the lighter of these things are put in print, -and then always with the name omitted. Only a few months ago a priest -(and Education-Councillor) in a Scottish town gravely assured a -schoolmistress, in the presence of an acquaintance of mine, that his -Church held unshakable proofs of my vicious ways. As usual, my request -that they would say so in print was ignored. Most ex-priests have the -same experience. One of the most refined and religious of these -seceders, a man who became a most respected professor at Oxford, was -pursued by the calumny (never printed) that he had shown indecent -photographs to servant-girls! -</p> - -<p> -This tactic of the Church militant is happily so notorious that little -harm is done among the general public, but Catholics are gravely -deluded, in the hope that they will be induced to refrain from reading -any except their own mendacious literature. -</p> - -<p> -Yet one of the most familiar themes of the men who pursue this tactic -is that they alone can inspire high character! Notoriously insincere -in their professions, teachers of doctrines which the higher culture -of our time and many of their own leading scholars condemn, living in -an atmosphere of untruth and unreality, relying on a literature which -is generally as indifferent to truth as it is to grace, unscrupulously -repeating idle slanders of their opponents, they ask us to believe -that they are genuinely concerned about the future of society if we -continue to reject their authority. It is not strange that the great -cities of the modern world are unmoved by their dirges. -</p> - -<p> -The third point of my indictment is that the clergy have forged the -historical credentials by which they lay claim to our respect. I have -already observed that their version of the history of Europe is -peculiar to their own literature, and I have elsewhere (<i>The Bible in -Europe</i>) shown in detail how worthless it is. The “conversion” of -Europe to Christianity in the fourth century was, as every historian -of the period shows, an enforcement of the new religion on Europe by -imperial authority, accompanied by the most violent and bloody -repression of all other religions. We then have the witness of -contemporary Christian writers that this “conversion” was followed -by a general moral and intellectual decline. The great reforms which -Rome had inaugurated were destroyed, and Europe sank into the -ignorance, superstition, and grossness of the Middle Ages. It is quite -true that the triumph of Christianity coincided with the overthrow of -civilisation by the northern tribes, but the Teutonic tribes were not -inferior to the Arabs or Turks (whom Mohammedanism civilised in the -course of a century or two), and the Church soon obtained despotic -power over them. The Eastern Empire, I may add, was <i>not</i> dominated by -the barbarians, yet it also suffered a grave moral and intellectual -decline. The fact is, that the clergy made no effort to induce the -barbarians to restore the old school-system, to reconstruct the Roman -law, to free the slaves (and, later, the serfs), to adjust their high -native ideal of womanhood to the new social order, or to rebuild the -fine civic and philanthropic system of the Romans. Culture fell so low -that the very promising germs of later Greek science were allowed to -die, and nearly the whole of the surviving Greek literature was -unknown in Europe for many centuries. The trade in spurious relics, -the rapacity and unscrupulousness of the Papacy, the coarseness of the -nobles and people, and the general sexual licence of priests and monks -were almost incredible. -</p> - -<p> -This dark age began to receive the first rays of new light in the -eleventh and twelfth centuries, and historians are agreed that the new -light came from the civilisation of the Spanish Moors. This it was -that, by introducing Greek literature and its Arab commentators, led -to the early revival of science. But the cult of the grossest relics -and superstitions continued, and the clergy repressed, or inspired -rulers to repress, all dissent with more ferocity than ever. During -the one general persecution of the early Christians by the Romans -about two thousand had suffered for the faith; and only a few hundreds -can be added from the earlier sporadic persecutions. But within fifty -years of the establishment of Christianity in the Empire, tens of -thousands of Donatists, Manichæans, Arians, Pagans, etc., were done -to death, and hundreds of thousands ruined or maltreated, by the -triumphant Christians. In later centuries it was the turn of -Monophysites, Monothelites, etc., and in the first quarter of the -thirteenth century alone more than a million heretics were done to -death in Languedoc. If the Jews and witches and others who suffered on -religious grounds be added, the “butcher’s bill” of the new -religion passes ten millions; and beyond these are the countless -millions of those who suffered something less than death. -</p> - -<p> -We look back to-day with feelings of horror on this ghastly carnage, -especially when we remember the absurd character of the doctrines -which the heretics assailed and the immorality of the clergy and monks -who were primarily responsible for the executions and massacres. But -this savage repression of independent thought had consequences of an -even more disastrous nature on European civilisation. It not only -removed from the community many of the more courageous and more -intelligent stocks, but it intimidated others from using their powers, -except in the futile argumentation of the Schoolmen. The result was a -prolonged suspension of the development of the higher culture which -was destined to give Europe its supremacy. It will hardly be doubted -to-day that this culture was contained in the scientific works of the -Greeks, especially the Alexandrian Greeks. The Arabs brought this -culture to Spain, and, chiefly through the mediation of the Jews, it -was slowly introduced into Europe and inspired such scholars as -Gilbert, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Copernicus. Physics, -chemistry, and medicine began their development. But the fate of Roger -Bacon and Albert and Vesalius sufficiently reminds us of the -Church’s attitude toward the new culture, and the story of the -hampering of intellectual progress in the exact study of nature has -been repeatedly told. The scholastic fever, which had absorbed the -energies of most of the acutest minds in Europe, had to disappear, and -the power of the Church to be enfeebled, before the civilisation of -Europe could advance. -</p> - -<p> -The further introduction of Greek literature, when the Turks drove the -Greeks from Constantinople, the invention of printing, the expansion -of commerce and navigation, and the weakening of Church-authority by -the Reformation, opened the modern phase of the development of -European civilisation. It is only for the last of these changes that a -section of the clergy may plausibly claim our gratitude, and even here -we must make reserves. The share of the laity in the Reformation was -greater than the share of the clergy, and the aim of the Reformed -clergy was by no means to free and stimulate the intelligence of -Europe. They frowned on lay culture, and burned their opponents, as -inhumanly as the Roman priests did. It was not until the growth of -sects had further enfeebled ecclesiastical authority, and a large body -of lay scholars had arisen, that Europe became civilised, even in a -generous sense of the word. Then science and philosophy and history -grew to the proportions which distinguish “modern times,” and a -resolute social and humanitarian movement began to remove those -appalling injustices of the industrial and political order which the -clergy had witnessed in silence for more than a thousand years. -</p> - -<p> -I repeat that this is not an eccentric view of the development of -European civilisation, but the view taken by historians ever since -their science was emancipated from clerical control. The view which -the clergy still sedulously propagate, that the Christian religion -inspired the civilisation of Europe, is the most preposterous -historical sham which we still entertain. It is unintelligible how a -scholar like Mr. Bryce can give even a qualified support to it. In the -minds of most people it is a pitiful confusion of ideas associated -with one of the most elementary fallacies known to the logician. The -fallacy is the syllogism which suffices for the majority of the -faithful: Europe is the great centre of civilisation, Europe was -Christian during the development of this civilisation, therefore -Christianity was the inspirer of the civilisation. The inference is -foolish enough in itself, but it becomes ludicrous when we reflect on -the facts. Europe was civilised before it became Christian; it -inherited all the best culture and experience of Egypt, Mesopotamia, -Persia, Greece, and Rome. But Europe lost its civilisation when it -became Christian, very largely because the new religion found culture -dangerous to its superstitions and repressed it. And Europe owes its -return to civilisation to the revival of pagan ideas, and it advances -in civilisation in proportion as it discards Christianity. -</p> - -<p> -The confusion of ideas is just as foolish as the fallacy. Europe is -“great” in two very different senses. Most of the white nations -are “great” in the vastness of their territory and the wealth they -have derived from subject peoples. To connect this form of greatness -with the Sermon on the Mount is audacious: it is a practice which -really belongs to the age when English merchants who waxed fat on the -negro-slave trade could complacently give the name “Jesus” to -their vessels. This form of greatness frankly rested on buccaneering. -Europe is great also in intellectual development, with the scientific -and technical achievements to which this has led. We need not ask what -particular Christian sentiment has inspired this; we know too well the -share the clergy have had in repressing it. -</p> - -<p> -Lastly, Europe is great in the cultivation of humane sentiment and the -endeavour to practise social justice. It is here that the clergy -usually claim their usefulness; and there is hardly a bolder -mis-statement in their literature than this. The New Testament -contains not a single moral sentiment that was unknown to the Greeks -and Romans, and to the later Jews: the moral sentiments of the New -Testament are so vague and elementary that not a single priest -denounced slavery for nine hundred years, and not a Church has -denounced war for more than eighteen hundred years: the Christian -ethic was so uninspiring that Europe reeked with vice and crime and -war and social injustice until the end of the eighteenth or beginning -of the nineteenth century: when the reform began, in the nineteenth -century, hardly a single priest aided it (until it had won millions of -adherents), and the bishops almost unanimously opposed it: and the -humanitarianism of modern times is an almost exclusively lay movement, -gaining power and fervour in proportion as we sweep the clergy aside. -Europe was civilised under the Roman and Greek pagans, and it is -civilised, in the same broad sense, under the modern pagans; it was -not civilised in the intervening period, and the worst features of its -life to-day are, not recent outgrowths, but inheritances from the -Christian past. -</p> - -<p> -The pleas which some of the clergy, who know a little history, urge -against this plain generalisation of the historical facts are curious. -The majority, of course, knowing nothing of history, repeat the -conventional untruths, but a few would tell us that this modern -humanitarianism is due to a belated appreciation of the Christian -ethic. Are justice, sympathy, truthfulness, kindness, and honour -confined to the Christian ethic? Was there ever a great moralist, or a -mature civilisation, which failed to appreciate them? Is not the -modern humanitarian movement plainly characterised by a determination -to do good to men, not for a reward in heaven or because Christ (like -so many others) enjoined it, but because you cannot have a fine mind -and character without experiencing this determination? Were there, in -the fifteen hundred years of Christian domination, not enough men with -intelligence enough to perceive the practical bearing of Christ’s -ethic? Have these clerical writers frankly abandoned the claim that -the “Spirit of God” guided their predecessors during those fifteen -centuries? And have they read a line of the modern literature which -shows that there is not one humane sentiment in the Gospels that was -not well known to the Jews before the time of Christ? -</p> - -<p> -The case of the clergy is a tissue of sophistry and untruth from -beginning to end. They have done nothing as a body for European -civilisation, in proportion to their power and leisure and resources. -They did not even teach it chastity. They hindered the development of -the culture which it vitally needed, and dissipated its finest -intelligence in the tilling of barren soil. They fought fiercely for -their own wealth and power, and were for fifteen hundred years a -mighty parasitic growth on the working community. They kept the -bandage of illiteracy on the eyes of ninety per cent. of their people -for fifteen hundred years, and dined merrily with the nobles who -exploited the people. They exacted respect in virtue of their supposed -close communion with an all-holy God; and they were themselves, -especially in their highest representatives, immoral and hypocritical -in an appalling proportion, were brutal in coercing their critics, -were traffickers in spurious and sordid relics, and were, when noble -men and women at last won liberty from them, ignorant, slanderous, and -careless of truth as no reputable body of laymen would stoop to -become. Their record is as poor as their opportunity was great, and -the modern world is, in strict proportion to the growth of education, -passing disdainfully by the open doors of their churches. Of the -twelve million inhabitants of the three greatest cities of Europe -hardly two millions attend church; and if it were not for the -incessant, feverish, and highly organised efforts of the clergy -themselves, churchgoing would show a further rapid and enormous -shrinkage. Yet even in this last phase we find them mumbling to -ill-instructed congregations about their glorious record in Europe -(crowned by a war of four hundred million people), about the -wickedness of an age which prefers the indulgence of its passions to -their serene guidance, and about the terrible doom which they foresee -for Europe if it does not return to its medieval guardians. -</p> - -<p> -As I observed in dealing with the political organisation, Christianity -is not a set of ideas but a wealthy and powerful corporation. Once it -was a body of men holding certain beliefs: now it is, in essence, an -organisation for the enforcement of those beliefs. It is, in the main, -this professional or corporate interest which sustains Christianity in -Europe: but it is losing heavily. I have shown (<i>Decay of the Church -of Rome</i>) that the oldest branch of the Church has lost about a -hundred million followers in a hundred years. I do not think that the -Protestant Churches, being more progressive and less offensive in -their tactics, have lost so heavily, but the extraordinary decay of -churchgoing in cities like Berlin, London, and New York is -suggestive. In spite of all the tricks and devices of the clergy—the -vestments and concerts, the matrimonial agencies and philanthropic -coercion, the Y.M.C.A.’s and P.S.A.’s and all the rest—the people -still fall away. No proof could be formulated to-day that even the -majority of the people of Europe are Christians. -</p> - -<p> -The thoughtful minority in the religious world are retreating upon the -liberal theism which so many of our cultural leaders profess, or upon -some even more vague mysticism. Into this further province it is not -my intention to go. The world will, no doubt, long remain divided in -opinion, or in sentiment, on fundamental religious issues, and for my -practical purpose this difference is of no account. There is, however, -one last consideration put forward by the clergy which it may be -useful to consider. -</p> - -<p> -It is represented that we are in danger of a triumph of -“materialism,” and it is therefore wise to cling, in spite of -their errors, to the Churches which so solidly represent -“spiritualism.” Since many people have regarded me as peculiarly -exposed to this danger of falling under the evil spell of -“materialism,” I have made eager inquiries among spiritualist -writers as to the nature of “spirit.” I am still hopefully -inquiring. Most of the anæmic mystics who gush over the word cannot -tell you what it means. They have a vague conviction that the -spiritual is immensely more important and productive of good than the -material, and that therefore materialism is the most appalling blight -that can fall on a nation. These prophets of evil are, as I have -previously observed, not strong in history. They do not explain how -Confucianism (which Sir Edwin Arnold, accurately enough, calls -materialism) proved so great an inspiration in China and Japan: how -the Stoics (who refused utterly to believe in spirit) wrought so much -good and inspired so fine a character at Rome: or how this -materialistic age of ours is so idealistic. They know only that we -must at all costs cultivate the spiritual—read spiritual writers, -respect spiritual persons, encourage spiritual clergymen and artists -and actors—and loathe materialism from the bottom of our hearts. And -it is therefore quite natural to suppose that all that is precious in -life and progress depends on the belief in the existence of -“spirits.” -</p> - -<p> -In point of fact, we have here entangled ourselves in an extraordinary -confusion. The cultivation of intelligence, fine sentiment, and -straight character has nothing whatever to do with the question -whether the mind of man is or is not divisible into parts, or has or -has not “inertia”: which are the only philosophic distinctions -between matter and spirit that I have discovered. The tradition of the -spirituality of the mind is responsible for this confusion. <i>If</i> the -mind is a spirit, then spirit is assuredly the source of the finest -things in life, and is far superior to matter. But that is just the -question at issue; and it really does not matter two pins for -practical purposes whether the mind is extended and inert (in the -scientific sense), or unextended and devoid of inertia. One has only -to substitute clear conceptions for vague terms, and the whole -controversy is reduced to absurdity. Whichever side wins in the -academic battle about the nature of mind, it remains as true as ever -that the cultivation of mind is one of the most important aims that -men can set up. Why on earth should we be less disposed to cultivate -the mind of the race if some sudden turn of scientific advance were to -prove it “a function of the brain”? It remains true that our race -owes the position it occupies entirely to mind: that our civilisation -owes its ascendancy over barbarism to mind: and that we rely entirely -on the further cultivation of mind—of intelligence, will, and -emotion—to destroy those shams which impede our progress and curtail -our prosperity and happiness. It is ludicrous to say that we cannot -thus cultivate mind unless we believe it to be an indivisible and -incomprehensible and indefinable something. It would, in fact, be less -absurd to say that we should have more confidence in our power to -cultivate mind if we regarded it as an organic function, subject to -definite treatment. -</p> - -<p> -As to the lapse of a belief in personal immortality, it is not less -absurd to say that this would paralyse our efforts. As Ruskin says on -the point: “The shortness of life is not, to any rational person, a -conclusive reason for wasting the space of it which may be granted -him.” That magnificent preface to <i>The Crown of Wild Olive</i> ought -long ago to have silenced these dismal sophists. The fact is, that -this age of ours, in proportion as it grows indifferent to the old -legends and the appeals of the clergy, rises toward heights which man -never climbed before. The clergy are most amusingly puzzled. Popes -tell us that we are children of perdition, reeling into an earthly -abyss, to say nothing of a deeper beyond: archbishops say that we are -just beginning to realise the true import of Christ’s teaching. The -candid man or woman will look searchingly for himself or herself into -the heart of our age, and, if he or she have an accurate knowledge of -earlier ages, will recognise that it throbs with a human idealism, -tenderness, and sympathy which have been unknown in Europe since the -old pagans departed. -</p> - -<p> -Let me end on that note. The religious person will close this work, if -he perseveres to the end, with a series of horrified exclamations. -Socialism! Immoralism! Republicanism! Materialism! Malthusianism! I -shudder under the shower of horrid epithets, yet would ask this -outraged reader to forget “’isms” for a moment and consider a -simple statement of the human faith I here present. -</p> - -<p> -The ideals which I hold in supreme regard are truth in our beliefs and -statements, justice and generosity in our actions, the co-operation of -all men to make the earth happier. I am in temperament no hedonist. -Thirty years of assiduous study, of much severe trial, of stoical -endurance have left me more or less insensible to what men and women -usually call happiness. My personal desires are sated in that I may, -in circumstances of peace and modest comfort, devote myself to -intellectual labour and the employment in the cause of progress of -such influence as I have. I see no purpose imposed on life, and I -therefore conclude that men and women are free to put such purpose on -their collective life as they deem advisable. No purpose seems to be -wiser, grander, or more inspiring than that they should seek to -assuage the last pang of remediable pain and bring sunshine into the -dark places of the earth. For me there is no heaven; and therefore the -spectacle of those thousands passing daily and nightly into the -silence, after lives of pain, misery, or brutality, while we cling to -the barbaric traditions or ill-devised institutions that have come -down to us, is an intolerable goad. Let us have criticism and scrutiny -of all that we do and all that we believe; and let us have courage to -reject all that we think false and purify all that we find corrupted. -Let us assert that mighty power of which we are conscious; and, if it -take ages to undo all the errors of the past and agree upon a plan of -a regenerated earth, let us at least strive to awaken men to a -consciousness of their power and of the evils they have to remove. -These are my suggestions of what is wrong in life and how it may be -righted. It may be materialism, this plain human gospel of mine; but -it seems to me that, if it could be carried into effect, there would -spread gradually over this earth such joy and freedom and prosperity -as men’s prophets have babbled of in their dying dreams. -</p> - -<p class="end"> -[The End] -</p> - - -<h2> -TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES. -</h2> - -<p class="noindent"> -Alterations to the text: -</p> - -<p> -A few spelling corrections. -</p> - -<p class="end"> -[End of Book] -</p> - - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Tyranny of Shams, by Joseph McCabe - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TYRANNY OF SHAMS *** - -***** This file should be named 62961-h.htm or 62961-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/9/6/62961/ - -Produced by David Thomas -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/62961-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/62961-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 6b8e047..0000000 --- a/old/62961-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
