labour from falling into the unorganized proletariate; and on the other in assisting as many as possible to rise from the proletariate into the organized class where they can obtain a comparatively secure subsistence;" an art which I will add, though not impossible, will tax our statesmen's resources to the utmost.

V.

So far we have only considered Socialism as a working man's question, or a poor man's question. But to regard it as solely such is to take too narrow a view of the subject. Socialism will never go far or accomplish much unless it has promises for more than the merely poor. It will never arouse sufficient enthusiasm; it will not enlist capacity in its service, but rather repel it; it will not, in consequence, acquire the necessary momentum.

Most certainly modern Socialism as conceived by its first founders, St. Simon and his school, had a larger and wider aim than the elevation of the poorer classes. That indeed was one of its express aims, "The amelioration of the condition, material, mental, and moral, of the poorer classes." But it had a wider and more comprehensive ultimate aim, which embraced the former one, and more, namely the general reorganization of labour and the distribution of its fruits on a new and juster scheme. It proposed

to place every capacity in its fitting field of labour

4 Bluntschli's "Theory of the State," Book II. ch. xviii. On the "Survey of Modern Classes."

and to reward each according to its works, which, if it could have been done, would have solved what is now called the Labour Question, or the working man's question, and the larger question of distribution in general, by giving to every one his due.

The old Socialism was more universal than the new; it addressed itself to all the world, including particularly the poor, excluding only the inheritors of wealth, and them but partially. It strongly denied equality of capacity, but desired equality of opportunity. It did not contemplate equality of reward, which it conceived to be unjust. But by the new Socialists of the Social Democracy of Germany and elsewhere, Socialism is thought of mainly as a labourers' question, and a general levelling and equalizing is what appears to be aimed at, although the natural course of social evolution, so often appealed to by Karl Marx and the Socialist writers as leading to their ideal, gives no ground to expect any such general level. The tendencies which according to the Socialist writers must irresistibly end in Socialism give no hope of a Socialism of the kind desired; they are not in the direction of a Socialism based upon equality, but of inequality; they do not point to the realization of the ideal of the Socialism of Karl Marx, but rather to that of the St. Simonians.

The new Socialists point to the extension of the State's functions in the sphere of industry, the increasing concentration of capital in larger masses, the extension of the principle of association, as signs of

the coming of Socialism; they tell us that a universal Socialism may come by the successive absorption by the State of the industries most suited for its management, beginning with the great monopolies; as fast as they cover the field, the State following and superseding them. But if Socialism came spontaneously in this way, as I allow that in part it might, it would not be likely to result in the desired equality, for the present principle of payment would presumably continue in all such extensions of Government management, as in the civil service and all the public services of to-day. The notion of equal remuneration would thus have to be given up; but then, according to Dr. Schæffle, if the notion of equality in the control of the work and equality of remuneration be given up, the "spirit of democracy is scattered to the winds, and Socialism has no further charm for the masses."

As to this last, I am by no means certain such Socialism might find favour with the masses, especially if, to use the words of Professor Sidgwick, "the principle of remuneration now adopted in respect of Government officials were retained, while at the same time the means of training for the higher kinds of work were effectually brought within the reach of all classes by a well-organized system of free education, liberally supported by exhibitions for the children of the poor."

I doubt if the democracy would be opposed to inequality of remuneration or to authoritative control, 5 "Principles of Political Economy," Book III. ch. vii. § 4.

с

Such a scheme might, perhaps, not be a bad ideal goal as to which, however, I have two observations to make. First, that we should go slowly and tentatively towards it, not taking a second step till the results of the first were carefully measured and known, a thing requiring both time and science; secondly, that to my judgment it is distinctly a case where part, as it would be more possible to get it, would also be much better than the whole; where a correcting and supplementing of the present system, somewhat on the lines suggested in the concluding chapters, would be better than universal state management and the suppression of private enterprise, which the St. Simonian Socialism involves no less than the new scheme of Collectivism.

It would be better economically to leave the largest part of the field of industry in the hands of private enterprise, both as a stimulus to invention. and to new enterprise, as well as to keep Government management up to the mark by competition, and the contagion of energetic example. But, secondly, there are nearly as grave objections to the abolition of inheritance, which is a necessary part of the St. Simonian scheme, as there are to the equalizing of salaries contemplated by the Social Democrats (Collectivists). The abolition of inheritance would be

example. The best existing capacity was in her hierarchy. Capacity was sought for, enlisted in her service, and promoted, which in part explains her predominance in the Middle Ages, as she was intellectually superior; was really, compared with the rest of society, as the head to the body.

unjust as well as contrary to the deepest instinct of human nature. Let it be granted that the present law of inheritance works injustice; its proposed abolition would create an opposite injustice.

The complete abolition of inheritance would be unjust. In any case it would be inexpedient, unless human nature were altered. Because society will not get from an able man his best efforts, unless it gives him first, the hope of a correspondingly greater reward, and, secondly, unless it allows him to make a provision for his children with his savings. Most certainly men in general labour for their children far more than for themselves; and if inheritance were abolished, all the extra energy and all the extra wealth due to this deep spring of effort would disappear. In the industrial field, at least, it would mean diminished production, unless human nature had changed, and men had learned to love each other, and to labour strenuously for the good of each other.

The present system no doubt both works injustice, and also indirectly checks production, by keeping back the able, while it enables people who do no work to levy rent and interest on the general revenue of the country. And here again the middle course, as recommended hereafter, would seem to be the only practical solution of the perplexing question; the only conciliation of the social antinomy, that both the opposite views of Socialism and the present system are wrong as regards inheritance.

I am aware that the present Socialists claim it as a great point in their favour that they do not propose