Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

it is quite certain that if these prizes were withheld the number of competitors for the respective races of which such are the prizes would be very materially reduced. The late Professor Bonamy Price was fond of saying that the best answer he had ever received from a pupil was the reply of a schoolgirl to the somewhat alarming question: "What is the first cause of civilization?" The answer was, "Progressive desires." And it is true that if the gratification of desire is denied the desire itself will fade, and with it every stimulus to the gratification of that desire. On the other hand, and at the bottom of the scale, the struggle for bare existence may be arrested by the artificial supply of the necessaries of life and with the starvation of the primary instincts will disappear many, if not all, of the virtues developed by the free operation of these instincts. In the story of life we have a curious illustration of this truth amongst the amphibia. There is a low order of these creatures known as the sozo branchia (Gilled amphibia), which retain their gills throughout life like the fishes. In the second order of the salamanders the gills are lost in the metamorphosis, and when fully grown they have only pulmonary respiration. Some of the tailed amphibia still retain the gill cleft in the sides of the neck, though they have lost the gills themselves. If we force the larvæ of our salamanders and tritons to remain in the water and prevent them from reaching the land, we can in favorable circumstances make them retain their gills. In this fish-like condition they reach maturity, and remain throughout life at the lower stage of the gilled amphibia. We have the reverse of this experiment in a Mexican gilled salamander, the fish-like axolotl. It was formerly regarded as a permanent gilled amphibian, persisting throughout life at the fish stage. But

some of the hundreds of these animals that are kept in the botanical garden at Paris got on to the land for some reason or other, lost their gills and changed into a form closely resembling the salamander.3 In like manner, as has been already pointed out, in districts of the earth's surface where Nature, like a benign Radical Government provides the elementary necessaries of life without exertion on the part of the recipients, men lose their competitive instinct, and with it the vigor which spells progress. It is in these two respects that the tendency of modern Socialism runs counter to the direct teaching of science. Nothing has contributed so largely to the formation of British national character as love of independence and hatred of all that is summarized in the term "parish relief." Out of these feelings have grown the virtues of providence and self-denial. The heroism displayed in the struggle to avoid the workhouse as the asylum of old age has been as invaluable to the State as it has been to the formation of individual character. The tendency today is artificially to remove all incentives to the attainment of this virtue by assuring a modest prize to all who enter for the race, whether they take a place in the competition or not. What happened to the once sturdy sons of Rome after they had been taught the fatal lesson that panis et circenses could be had for the asking, without money or without work, and therefore without exertion or self-denial, wil! happen to all countries which undertake to provide for the individual what the individual is able to provide for himself. At the other end of the scale the constant reduction of the value of the prizes by means of graduated taxation must inevitably tend to diminish and ultimately to extinguish the number of

3 Haeckel. "The Evolution of Man." Cheap Edition, pp. 842-343

of

competitors. To sentimentalists who will not give themselves the trouble of thinking, nothing seems more just or more generous than the principle dressed up in the attractive euphemism "of placing the burdens upon the shoulders best able to bear them." That is the motto, not of the statesman, but of the gentlemanly highwayman. It is the boast of your "Starlights" that they never robbed any but the rich, and that often they have replenished the slender purse of the indigent with the spoils ravished from the bloated portemonaie of the opulent. Philanthropy is not a Department of State. Politics are business; statesmen, and especially Chancellors of the Exchequer, are not the almoners of the public charity, but the trustees of the national wealth. They have no more right to use the money entrusted to them for public purposes in order to redress the so-called inequalities Naure than have trustees under a will or a marriage settlement. The principle of regarding the State, meaning thereby the Government and the Parliament of the day, as merely a business concern requires, of course, some qualification. Nobody denies that it is the duty of the State to make provision for life's actual failures, just as it is the business of the organizers of armies to provide not only for those who actually succumb upon the stricken field-for such provision is part of the terms of their contractbut also for the sick and for those that fall out by the way. But just as the Commander-in-Chief would be mad who subordinated his whole plan of campaign to the requirements of the Army Medical Corps, so is a Government unworthy of trust which bases its fiscal policy wholly or mainly upon considerations of the wants and requirements of the least fit section of the community. Yet upon a thousand platforms orators declaim as if the

whole policy of a great Empire ought to be determined solely by the duty of administering to the wants of its less fit, and, therefore, of its less efficient members.

It must, moreover, be remembered that what may be called the Poor Relief Department of State was called into existence in this country by the sudden dissolution of the monasteries. which imposed upon the State as a whole the duties voluntarily assumed by the charitable through the agency of religious institutions. As it is, the instinct of individual charity inculcated by the Christian faith has never disappeared. London alone, apart from accumulated bequests, contributes annually the equivalent of a twopenny Income-tax to charitable purposes. If the State arrogates to itself the functions of grand almoner extorting contributions by statute, the stream of individual charity will dry up to the disadvantage alike of those who give and those who receive. Modern Radicalism is identifying itself more closely every day with Socialism, and the object of Socialism is ex vi termini to destroy individualism. Individualism, however, cannot be destroyed without eliminating individual character. It may, of course, be asked what reason is there for believing that Collectivism is not the goal to which society should ultimately aspire. The answer is that the motto of Nature, to use the symbolism from which one cannot escape, is vestigia nulla retrorsum. Return to stages from which an organism has emerged means degradation or, in other words, a step towards ultimate destruction. In the lower forms of life we find instances of degeneration; but it must be remembered that degeneration is what it implies. Darwin in his celebrated voyage observed the free swimming larvæ of the ascidia. These larvæ resemble tadpoles in outward appear

ance and use their tails as oars, as the tadpoles do. This lively and highlydeveloped condition does not last long. At first there is a progressive development; the foremost part of the medullary tube enlarges into a brain, and inside this two single-sense organs are developed a dorsal auditory vesicle and a ventral eye. Then a heart is formed, &c. But as Haeckel informs us, "with the formation of these organs the progressive development of the ascidia comes to an end, and degeneration sets in. The free swimming larva sinks to the floor of the sea, abandons its locomotive habits, and attaches itself to stones, marine plants, mussel shells, corals, and other objects. This is done with the part of the body that was foremost in movement the tail is lost, as there is no further use for it. It undergoes a fatty degeneration and disappears with the chorda dorsalis. The tailless body changes into an unsightly tube." The same degeneration is observed in many parasites. Socialism is a primitive stage through which mankind has passed in the process of development. It was a useful stage, of course, and suited to the then environment. It survives in the communal, or mir, system of Russia, which by universal consent is doomed. It may be seen in full work amongst the Kaffirs. Mr. Dudley Kidd, in his absorbing book, Kaffir Socialism, the result of long and intelligent personal observation, has given us an invaluable account of primitive Socialism in being. Take, for instance, the question of land. If Collectivism is the highest stage attainable, the Kaffir system is already far ahead of that attained in Europe. "All the land," he tells us (Kaffir Socialism, p. 17), "owned by the tribe is vested in the chief, who allows every man to use as much ground as his wives can till. No land can be sold, entailed, or de

vised, and yet a man knows that his gardens will never be taken from him so long as he cultivates them. All unalloted land that is not required for gardens, together with all wood and water, is regarded as common property for the grazing of cattle or for the needs of all the members of the clan. Nationalization of land is, therefore, absolute." Mr. Lloyd George's Budget in so far as it affects the land, might be based upon this principle. Perhaps it was. The consequences, as Mr. Kidd tells us p. (40), are those aimed at by Socialism, and likely to be realized if modern Radicalism, which Socialism painted yellow, has its way. "It is often said," Mr. Kidd writes, "with not a little truth, that in a Kaffir kraal there is not only no incentive, but no room for individual initiative. The consequence of this is that the entire tribe reaches-for it aims at-a low, dull level of mediocrity in which no one is behind or in front of the mass. The result of this unprogressive state of affairs is seen in the fact that the Kaffirs to-day cling to the customs of their ancestors, build the same type of rude hut, use the same primitive implement and methods of agriculture and warfare, and have borrowed little or nothing from the civilization of the white man." And so it turns out as might have been expected that the new Radicalism is not so new after all, but is a remarkably close imitation of an extinct form of Toryism belonging to a period of development long since past. So, indeed, Mr. Kidd tells us. "The clan system seems to enshrine a conservatism that is nearly absolute: all innovations are regarded with suspicion simply because they are innovations; the status of woman will apparently remain low so long as the system continues. Polygamy will vanish slowly, if at all; the belief in witchcraft will never die out, and many poor wretches will continue

to suffer from this cause; the lobola custom, in virtue of which a man receives a number of cattle when he gives his daughters in marriage, will probably remain the woman's one defence and safeguard-and it is not a noble one though it is surprisingly effective." The whole system of the cult of the unfit belongs to the childhood of man, and it may be that the phenomenon of Socialism is an indication of the near advent of man's second childhood. Mr. Kidd is a scientific observer and not a political satirist. Yet Swift himself could not have imagined a more bitter lesson or a truer than one conveyed in Mr. Kidd's comment upon the aspirations of the educated Kaffir. "It is strange," he says (Kaffir Socialism, p. 118), "that the educated natives are unable to see that they cannot have it both ways. They want all the advantages of 'political rights' that are given only to mature adults, and yet as all who follow the speeches of the educated Kaffirs know, they want also to have at the same time all the discriminating privileges that are given only to children or minors. But the moment they get their 'political rights' they will lose their children's privileges. Because they are backward and immature they ask us to protect them from competition with keen and smart white men, and piteously appeal for discriminating legislation on such a subject as the high rates of usury demanded by shady European moneylenders; they expect us to secure to them enormous tracts of land-and they insist on having the most fertile land-though thousands of white men are anxious that this land should be thrown into the market. At present we decline to listen to the white people, even though we know they would The Fortnightly Review.

exploit the land to better purpose than the Kaffirs do; and we base our refusal to listen to the white men simply on the fact that we adopt a parental relation to the native, and therefore protect him from the fierce competition of civilization. The moment we really grant an honest franchise the Kaffirs will find the white man ‘eating up' the land. In a dozen different ways we protect and shield the natives because of their political immaturity. The educated Kaffirs may now clamor for the rights of fully civilized men, but they would be the very first people to cry out when they found that the privileges granted merely because of their immaturity were vanishing one by one. The educated natives, therefore, could not be more short-sighted than to seek to be placed on an absolute equality with white men. They may not now fully realize their immeasurable inferiority to the European; let them but receive a real franchise, and they would find it out with a vengeance." The late Lord Salisbury once "got himself into trouble" because, in a speech dealing with the question of Irish Home Rule, he illustrated the truism that not all men in all conditions were fit for self-government, by observing that "you would not give self-government to Hottentots." Thereupon every Irish patriot arose in his wrath and declared that Lord Salisbury had called him a Hottentot. Undeterred by the deluge of invective which Lord Salisbury brought down upon himself, I do not hesitate to say that the cult of the unfit, as taught by our Radical Socialists, and as translated into practice by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, bears a forcible resemblance to the fallacies of "the educated Kaffir."

E. B. Iwan-Müller.

THE EMPEROR OF TO-MORROW.

There is much legitimate curiosity concerning a prince who, though long in the background, seems destined one day to occupy a prominent position on the European stage. To-day he is known as Franz Ferdinand; to-morrow he may be Emperor of the Dual Monarchy as Francis II.

The drama at Mayerling Castle, in which the Archduke Rudolf, the HeirPresumptive to the Austrian throne, perished, opened brilliant prospects to Franz Ferdinand, who had hitherto been merely one of the crowd of Austrian Archdukes. On the disappearance of the Crown Prince, the Archduke Charles Louis, father of Franz Ferdinand and brother of the Emperor Francis Joseph, became the heir to the throne; but Charles Louis was a philosopher, and, appalled by the burden and anxiety of power, he renounced his rights, and died in 1893. The Emperor was reluctant to recognize Franz Ferdinand as his successor, preferring the latter's younger brother, Otho Francis Joseph, who, however, disappointed the hopes of the aged monarch. He was a spendthrift. He died in 1906, leaving Franz Ferdinand in free and unchallenged possession. The future sovereign of the Dual Monarchy, who is a vigorous and taking personality, with a clear decided manner, received an excellent education. His tutor, Bishop Marschall, devoted himself to making his charge an accomplished prince, and when still quite young he finished his education by extensive travels in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, India, and Japan, whence he brought back a splendid collection.

While stationed at Presburg with his regiment the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a constant visitor at the Chateau de Pozsony, belonging to his cousin, the Archduke Frederick, Duke

of Taschen, the husband of Princess Isabella of Croy, who had not unnaturally entertained the hope that the Heir-Presumptive might be attracted by one of her daughters, and great was her chagrin on discovering that her cousin was captivated by the charms of her companion, Countess Chotek de Chotkowa et Woguin, a very intelligent and delightful young lady, belonging to a great but impoverished Czech family. The devoted young Archduke braved all opposition, including that of his uncle, the Emperor, and overcame all obstacles, and on July 1, 1900, Franz Ferdinand was morganatically married to the Countess Chotek at Reichstadt.

This step put the Heir-Presumptive in a false position, because by the Austrian Constitution he was compelled to pledge himself on oath to the exclusion of his wife from the Austrian throne, as also to bar the succession of their children. Hungary on the other hand, where the succession was regulated by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1723, repudiated the law governing the Hapsburg succession, refused to recognize this double exclusion, and in November 1900, after a month's debate, the Budapest Parliament formally acknowledged Franz Ferdinand as the HeirApparent to the Crown of St. Stephen's, the net result being that while his wife and children are excluded from the Austrian Succession, their rights to the Hungarian throne are recognized. This is admittedly a strange, abnormal, and complicated situation, capable if it continues of causing the future Emperor much difficulty and embarrassment. It is obvious that when the Countess Chotek (subsequently created Princess Hohenberg by the Emperor) becomes Queen

« AnkstesnisTęsti »