112 THE MAN VERSUS THE STATE.
in ecclesiastical squabbles about the ceremonies of its humane cult, cares so little about the essence of that cult that fillibustering in its colonies receives applause rather than reprobation, and is not denounced even by the priests of its religion of love, is a nation which must continue to suffer from internal aggressions, alike of individuals on one another and of the State on individuals. It is impossible to unite the blessings of equity at home with the commission of inequities abroad.
Of course there will arise the question — Why, then, enunciate and emphasize a theory at variance with the theory adapted to our present state?
Beyond the general reply that it is the duty of every one who regards a doctrine as true and important, to do what he can towards diffusing it, leaving the result to be what it may be, there are several more special replies, each of which is sufficient.
In the first place an ideal, far in advance of practicability though it may be, is always needful for right guidance. If, amid all those compromises which the circumstances of the times necessitate, or are thought to necessitate, there exist no true conceptions of better and worse in social organization — if nothing beyond the exigencies of the moment are attended to, and the proximately best is habitually identified with the ultimately best; there cannot be any true progress. However distant may be the goal, and however often intervening obstacles may necessitate deviation in our course towards it, it is obvionsly requisite to know whereabouts it lies.
Again, while something like the present degree of subjection of the individual to the State, and something like the current political theory adapted to it, may remain needful in presence of existing international relations; it is by no means needful that this subjection should be made greater and the adapted theory strengthened. In our days of active philanthropy, hosts of i^eople eager to achieve benefits for their less fortunate fellows by the shortest methods, are busily occupied in developing administrative arrangements of a kind proper to a lower type of society — are bringing about retrogression while aiming at progression. The normal difficulties in the way of advance are sufficiently great, and it is lamentable that they should be made greater. Hence, something well worth doing may be done, if philanthropists can be shown POSTSCRIPT. 113 that tliey are in many cases insuring the future ill- being of men while eagerly pursuing their present well-being.
Chiefly, however, it is important to impress on all the great truth, at present but little recognised, that a society's internal and external policies are so bound together, that there cannot be an essential improvement of the one without an essential improvement of the other. A higher standard of international justice must be habitually acted upon, before there can be conformity to a higher standard of justice in our national arrangements. The conviction that a dependence of this kind exists, could it be diffused among civilized peoples, would greatly check aggressive behaviour towards one another; and, by doing this, would diminish the coerciveness of their governmental systems while appropriately changing their political theories.
Note. [J?i some of the criiioisms on this worh, there has reappeared a mistaken inference several times hefore draiun, that the doctrine of evolution as applied to social affairs precludes philanthropic effort. 'How untrue this is, was shoivn by me in the Fortnightly Review for February, 1875. Here I reproduce the essential part of that which I there said.']
I am chiefly concerned, however, to repudiate the conclusion that the "private action of citizens" is needless or unimportant, because the course of social evolution is determined by the natures of citizens, as working under the conditions in which they are placed. To assert that each social change is thus determined, is to assert that all the egoistic and altruistic activities of citizens are factors of the change; and is tacitly to assert that in the absence of any of these — say political aspirations, or the promptings of philan- thropy— the change will not be the same. So far from implying that the efforts of each man to achieve that which he thinks best, are unimportant, the doctrine implies that such efforts, severally resulting from the natures of the individuals, are indispensable forces. The correlative duty is thus emphasized in § 34 of First Principles: — " It is not for nothing that he has in him these sympathies with some principles and repugnance to others. He, with all his capacities, and aspirations, and beliefs, is not an accident, but a product of the time. He must remember that while he id a descendant of the past, he is a parent I 114 POSTSCRIPT.
I 114 POSTSCRIPT.
of tlie future; and tliat Iiis tlioughts are as children born to him, wliich he may not carelessly let die. He, like every other man, may properly consider himself as one of the myriad agencies through whom works the Unknown Cause; and when the Unknown Cause produces in him a certain belief, he is thereby authorized to profess and act out that belief. For, to render in their highest sense the words of the poet, — "...Nature is made better by no mean, But nature makes that mean: over that art Which you say adds to nature, is an art That nature makes."
That there is no retreat from this view in the work Professor Cairnes criticises, is sufficiently shown by its closing paragraph: — " Thus, admitting that for the fanatic some wild anticipation is needful as a stimulus, and recognizing the usefulness of his delusion as adapted to liis particular nature and his particular function, the man of higher type must be content with greatly-moderated expectations, while he perseveres Avith undiminished efforts. He has to see how comparatively little can be done, and yet to find it worth while to do that little; so uniting philan- thropic energy with philosophic calm."
I do not see how Professor Cairnes reconciles with such passages, his statement that "accoi*ding to Mr. Spencer, the future of the human race may be safely trusted to the action of motives of a private and personal kind — to motives such as operate in the pro- duction and distribution o£ wealth, or in the development of lan- f^-uage." This statement is to the effect that I ignore the *' action of motives" of a higher kind; whereas these are not only necessarily included by me in the totality of motives, but repeatedly insisted upon as all-essential factors. I am the more surprised at this mis- apprehension, because, in the essay on "Specialized Administra- tion," to which Professor Cairnes refers (see Fortniglitlij EevieWj for December, 1871), I have dwelt at considerable length on the altruistic sentiments and the resulting social activities, as not having been duly taken into account by Professor Huxley.
As Professor Cairnes indicates at the close of his first paper, the difficulty lies in recognising human actions as, under one aspect, voluntary, and under another pre-determlned. 1 have said elsewhere all I have to say on this point. Here I wish only to point out that the conclusion he draws from my premises is utterly different from the conclusion I draw. Entering this caveat, ] must leave all further elucidations to come in due course.
UAHKUON AMD SONS, rB-iNXKBS IM ORDINABT TU nrs MAJESTY, ST. UABTIN's LANIS.
66, Victoria Street, S.W.
I