itary aristocratic caste. Darwin, as we have already seen, admits that the nobility in this country have a certain advantage in being able to select their wives more freely than most other men yet, allowing their superiority in this matter to the nobilities of other countries and rejoicing that the institution of the peerage has saved us from the worse calamity of a "nobility" in the proper sense, we may be permitted to regret that these highly privileged persons, the peers and the peers' eldest sons do not always think sufficiently of their responsibility to the future in the selection of their mates. Darwin, as we have also seen, inveighs against the folly of primogeniture: so that, after all, even the English nobility do not get much countenance from the theory of natural selection. It is strange to find the doctrine of heredity invoked by the defenders of the House of Lords: one would suspect that they have never looked into Mr. Galton's interesting book. It is instructive to notice the way in which half-understood scientific theories are misapplied to practical matters. Mr. Galton declares most emphatically that he looks upon the peerage "as a disastrous institution owing to its destructive effects on our valuable races." If an eminent man is elevated to the House of Lords, his eldest son is tempted to marry a wealthy heiress, in order to keep up the show required of a hereditary legislator; but wealthy heiresses usually tend to be sterile, being the last representatives of dwindling families. On the other hand owing to the beautiful British custom of primogeniture, the younger sons are induced to remain unmarried: and thus the peerage appears to be an ingenious device for hindering the propagation of talent. Further Mr. Galton shows clearly enough the absurdity of expecting to find 1. See Galton's Hereditary Genius p. 140, ability transmitted through a long line of descent: the older a man's family, therefore, the less likely is he to have inherited any of the ability of its founder. I suppose there is still a pious Conservative superstition that "our old nobility" can boast of its "Norman blood "-a belief which a critical examination of a recent copy of the "Peerage" would do a good deal to weaken. But even supposing the Norman blood were there, does it follow that it is now particularly worth having? "It is curious to remark," says Mr. Galton, "how unimportant to modern civilisation has become the once famous and thoroughbred looking Norman. The type of his features, which is, probably, in some degree correlated with his peculiar form of adventurous disposition, is no longer characteristic of our rulers, and is rarely found among celebrities of the present day; it is more often met with among the undistinguished members of highly-born families, and especially among the less conspicuous officers of the army." I have not yet raised the question as to what kind of characteristics can be transmitted from generation to generation and in what way: I have only tried to show that the scientific doctrine of heredity is a very treacherous ally of the defenders of aristocratic privilege. The doctrine of Evolution gives little support to the aristocratic Conservative. It may seem to give more to the "laissez faire" Radical. The evolutionist politician is more likely to adopt the view that in the interests of the race we ought to remove every artificial restriction on the operation of natural and sexual selection. But the difficulty is-where are we to find a line between "natural" and "artificial," if all the phenomena of society are, as the evolutionist is bound to hold, subject to the same laws of 1. Zb. p. 348. nature? If we are content to remove only some artificial restrictions, on what principle can we justify ourselves? If we are to remove every artificial restriction that hampers the struggle for existence, are we not going back to Rousseau's "State of Nature," the primitive, uncivilised pre-social condition of mankind? If we expect the "State of Nature" to be better than the present condition, which is one of at least mitigated or inconsistent anarchy, are we not falling back into the "metaphysical" conception of Nature and ignoring the scientific conception of society? The "State of Nature," ¿.e., the unsocial state, is more correctly described by Hobbes as "the war of all against all." On the other hand, when we find the more tenderhearted preacher of evolutionist morality pointing out that, though the physical well-being of the race may have suffered through the mitigation of the primitive struggle and the con |