"throughout the war Did nothing in particular, And did it very well;"

which I take to be the ideal of Toryism. But when the philanthropic energy on the other side is found to be growing too eager, too irreverent of Social Statics, the "man of higher type " receives a broad hint to join the Liberty and Property Defence League, and put his philosophic calm where he formerly kept his hands.

XIII.

And yet, while Mr. Spencer's ostensible political function has thus been to encourage the Conservative in Conservatism, and discourage the Liberal in Liberalism, it is probable that the actual effect of his teaching has been largely the reverse. What he has done for Radicalism has been to exhibit to it its mistakes: what he has done for Toryism, so far as Toryism reads the Synthetic Philosophy, is to shake its faith in permanence; for, as he himself indicates, the old Tory ideal did not cognise change as merely premature, but as sinful and ruinous. Toryism among evolutionists will remain: witness Mr. Spencer's own development; but it will never again be the purely primary instinct it was: the spell of the law of cosmic change is felt in its consciousness. He has sought to demonstrate that the evolution of a wholly conscious society can be no otherwise than as that of mainly unconscious societies; nay, that it can be no otherwise than as the mutations of absolutely unconscious matter, or of non-human species, unconscious as such. But that very theorem is itself an extension of consciousness; and the enlargement of mental boundary can never be undone, save by a social dissolution which lowers all the mental levels. There are clearly forces of social dissolution at work which, unchecked, might work such a degradation: forces of multiplication on the lower planes of social life which tend to swamp the higher life, and to re-establish religions and ideals

which we had before been outgrowing. And for all Mr. Spencer has directly taught, that ruinous process might continue. He has advised us to let the miserable multitude, young and old, die in its misery; he has urged us to discontinue that national education which is thus far our most comprehensive measure of selfdefence against the deadly malaria of multiplying ignorance; and he would have us defy the still more menacing contagion of deepening discontent. He has, in fine, counselled us to harden our hearts, that so we may rise to a higher morality, which means a completer sympathy. But it is a vain counsel. Hearts will not harden to command: that too is a cosmic process, and depends on the sum total of conditions. Instead of obeying him, we grapple with the great biological problem which it is his supreme mistake to have evaded; deciding that there is a way to help our fellows without multiplying helplessness: the way of knowledge, and of applied social science. We finally range ourselves with the new school which adds to the study of Social Statics that of Social Dynamics; and we disallow the teaching of the first masters in sociology as being only a beginning where they think it is an end. In the words of the author of Dynamic Sociology, we say of them, and in particular of Spencer, the greatest of them, that they "fail to comprehend the true nature of art as applicable to all departments of science. Perceiving that natural processes are genetic, they erroneously conclude that Nature's ways should be man's ways. They thus confound the essential idea of fine art with that of useful art, the imitation of Nature with the control of Nature. They teach the natural as the proper human method, whereas the latter is necessarily an artificial method." It might be added that even this discrimination between natural and artificial concedes too much to Spencer, inasmuch as the conscious effort to conform to a way of life deduced from study as the most truly "natural" is as essentially "artificial" as any attempt to innovate. In fine, Mr. Spencer's virtual implication that certain political action is not really "growth," amounts to a stultification of his own cosmic philosophy. He ends in a notion of the "order

1 As cited, i., pref. p. vi.

of nature" which takes us back to a stage of thought before science.1

And yet again, when all is said, how shall we measure our debt to the man whose wide achievement has laid the enduring foundation for this new art (which, let us never forget, is "an art which Nature makes"), and whose deeper and sounder teaching has given us the light which his mere temperamental bias would now fain shut out? Who has in our day widened and consolidated our knowledge as he has done? And what surer contribution is there than that to the reconstruction of our life? So imperishable is the service that our last words must needs be the acknowledgment of it. In the name of those who endorse all the criticism we have passed on what we reckon the perishable part of the thinker's work, do we finally turn and say: Hail, spiritual Father and honoured Master, who first trained us to shape our path through the forest by the eternal guidance of sun and stars; though we now must needs turn against the barriers you have raised, the gymnastic you yourself have given, and the woodcraft you yourself have taught, yet would we claim to hold ourselves of your great lineage still; and when we in turn grow wan with many memories," it is your name and not another's that we shall hand to our children as that of the foremost founder of the new line, the greatest herald of the new age.

1 See The Man versus the State, p. 64.

EPILOGUE.

OUTLINES OF SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION.

Ir cannot, I think, fairly be said of the foregoing criticisms, in so far as they deal with social problems, that they are "merely negative," as the phrase goes; but it may help towards a judgment on them to set forth finally and briefly such a scheme of socio-political action as they would justify. On the side of philosophy and religion, it may, perhaps, be said that I have offered negations without "putting something in the place" of the doctrines negatived. Such an objection, if it be made, I must take leave to dismiss as a fallacy in terms. Really to show that any belief is unsound is, in the nature of the case, to substitute for it a true belief to a greater or less extent; and if there be no demonstration or persuasion, there has been no effectual negation to complain of. A refutation of supernaturalist morality means the positing of a better; and the refutation of a supernaturalist theory amounts to the establishment of another. What is virtually implied by many who complain of "negative" criticism in religious matters, is that new institutions ought to be proposed to take the place of those discredited; which is quite a new thesis, requiring separate proof, which is never given. But as to social reform, it may be justly demanded that he who proclaims the error or insufficiency of teachings before the world should indicate clearly what he himself proposes to do, whether to innovate or conserve, and why. The close of a series of studies such as the foregoing, is not the place for anything more than an outline of the kind; but some such outline is due both to approvers and antagonists.

And at a time when not only advanced Radicalism but so-called English Socialism seems to be swallowed up in the agitation for an Eight Hours Law, it seems specially fitting, if not profitable, to make an attempt to lay down a broader path for political reform. Individualists of all schools are united in opposing the Eight Hours move

ment, which thus tends to become, for many onlookers, typical of the politics that aim at the prevention of poverty and the improvement of the status of the workers generally. There could be no more mischievous misconception. The cry for an Eight Hours Law represents, to begin with, merely the helpless acceptance, by the mass, of a proposal which offers a direct relief on such terms as to appeal to the weakest intelligence; and, beyond that, the adoption of that cry by some publicists for ulterior reasons, and by others because they fear to oppose it. Socialists are found asking for the Eight Hours Law as a means towards Socialism, when the whole of their professed economic and sociological doctrine commits them to the proposition that an Eight Hours Day can only be reached through Socialism. Radicals, who defend Free Trade on grounds of economic induction, accept this project in defiance of all economic induction. It only needs that the Tory party should adopt the cry, as they would fain have adopted that of Fair Trade, in order that it should be carried to the stage of legislation. After that, the consequences are easy of prediction. The measure will wholly fail to keep up the demand for labour, because the demand for goods will either slacken or be kept up by the cheapening action of new machinery, which will limit employment; and the cause of industrial and social reform will be discredited by the failure of a scheme which has gained a larger measure of popular support within a few years than any other now before us. At least let some of us try, whatever is to be the upshot, to keep a saner set of principles in the field.

1. All democratic political movements, the wise as well as the unwise, have in view the attainment of a greater measure of equality in material well-being. To the same end have been directed all the schemes of social reform, ancient and modern, which have ever won reputation among men. To prevent or limit inequality of wealth has been the hope of every Utopist, whether his ideal were one of Spartan simplicity or of ever-increasing fulness of life for the individual; and in inequality will be found the generalisation of the social evils which have provoked the protest of social reformers, as distinct from moralists, of nearly every school-the Carlyles, the Ruskins, the Owens, the