Before we can imagine what may be lines of possible advance, for the individual or the community, we should base our ideas on observing what have been the means of advance in the past. Many of the Utopian visions which have been sketched by different writers are in flagrant contradiction of all history and human nature. It is at least far more likely that gain in the future will be on similar lines to those which have been successful in the past, rather than on lines opposed to all previous growth.

The personal, rather than the communal, advance is the main consideration, inasmuch as it is personal initiative of the most able which helps the rest of the community forward. The greatest improvements are the result of a single mind, animating perhaps a small group of similar minds. We all know how such great benefits as prison reform, the abolition of slavery, the restriction of child labour, and similar movements of which the public are now proud, were each originated by one mind, and worked by a small group in the teeth of the bitterest opposition to start with. It goes without saying that the same is the case in all inventions; it takes not only an inventor, but also a commercial organiser (seldom one and the same man), to help the public to any improvement. If ten thousand men could be picked out of any one country, so as to remove the most fruitful minds, that country would come to an entire standstill, and would continue in mechanical repetition until a fresh generation gave a chance of the rise of original minds. Probably not more than one in a thousand minds causes useful advance among the others. And the majority of men lead automatic lives, of which the reflexes have been trained by teaching and experience to do what is required, and the daily actions are performed without a single real thought, but only in response to external stimuli of sights and orders. It is therefore in the development of the able individuals, and in giving every chance to such whenever they arise, that the hopes of the great mass must lie.

It is perhaps not too much to say that all general popular advance of the community at large is based on the prevention of waste. Wherever waste exists improvement is possible; and we need not trouble ourselves much about the construction of the social organism, so long as we can lay our finger on the waste and check it. As with a machine we know the amount of force that is put into it, and can see what percentage is yielded up usefully in its output, so it is with a community. The design of the nature and quality of work done by the community or the machine is another matter; though that again comes under the head of waste if the quality is bad. We will now look more precisely at the gains by prevention of waste in health, life, energy, and renewal.

The saving of health is one of the greatest steps that has been made, as it has been suddenly performed within a generation. Man had unconsciously conquered bacteria to a great extent by the invention of cooking, and by the experimental learning of cleanliness; but the scientific attack on bacteria and protozoa has given the prospect of preventing all epidemic disease, and largely increasing the efficiency of man in the most fertile countries. This advance means the economic exploitation of the whole tropical regions, which—with cheap transport—will provide an immense fresh basis for the advantage of other lands. The gain in antiseptic surgery, giving safety for operation on all internal organs, as it only affects the small proportion of sick and injured, is not of so much general importance as the conquest of the microorganisms, which have hitherto ruled the best part of the world. It is in the complete domination over all forms of life, however minute, that we shall find one of the greatest lines for future advance. Only a small band of workers, about one in a hundred million of the world's population, has made this advance possible.

The saving of life is another great step which will give man far higher power; not only in the mere hindrance of death, but far more in the increased power of work per day. The power of continuity of work is a growth of civilisation; and it is obvious that a man who can do twelve hours' work per day, instead of six hours, not only lives virtually twice as long, but costs the community only half as much for what he does. This continuity of work, or industry, is seen in both high and low classes of work. Some races can do more than twice as much agricultural work in the day as others. The same is true of scientific or commercial work. And there have been some of the highest minds which could only work for two hours a day, while others could work up to fourteen or sixteen hours daily. This power of continuity of work is obviously then a matter improvable by cultivation, both in the individual and in the race; and as it may easily double a man's effective life it is certainly a line of great promise for the future.

Another direction for saving a portion of life is in the rapidity of thought and action. It is easy to find a difference of two or three times the amount of work per hour between different men. All that we have just said about the continuity of work applies to its rapidity; and a large gain may be looked for in cultivating pace and vigour. We need hardly note that trades-union ideals would destroy instead of promoting these most promising and fruitful lines of advance.

In transport from place to place the movement at fifty miles an hour instead of five means a gain of several years of life to most men. But here we have probably reached the useful limits, as any possible further saving would not yield much more time.

The saving of energy is another form of the question of continuity of work. The ideal of work—as varied as possible, and as interesting as possible—being the joy of life and the greatest good, is an aim hardly yet grasped by more than a very few persons. To the majority, work is a hateful thing, to be done solely in order to get means for enjoyment in some other way. This essentially savage and uncultivated ideal needs to be steadily rooted out by the better adaptation of work to the individual. An education which started by cultivating the natural interests, using them for mental development, and only superadding what further knowledge was really requisite for life, would greatly help to eradicate the false and low idea of work which prevails. There is a common feeling that business cannot be interesting in itself; but there are few, if any, businesses which if intelligently followed will not yield scope for some real interest of observation and study. The greater application of mind to the work of life will leave far less scope for fruitless amusement and—as a great painter remarked—"there is nothing of interest in life to be compared with work."

To minds which are incapable of continuity of work, or of relaxation by variation of work, mere amusements are needful. Darwin's health prevented more than two hours' work a day, and the flimsiest of novels was his needful relaxation. But the need of amusement for this purpose must be taken as the index of incapacity for continuity—as an unfortunate failure of mental and physical health—as a disastrous defect when it occurs along with great abilities which can only thus work at low speed. The same may be said of athletics; the need of physical exercise outside of work is an index of incapacity for physical health adapted to the work, an unfortunate failure of those who are of defective condition. The idea that no one can be too strong and robust is a wild exaggeration; physical strength needs to be proportioned to the nature of work, and a slender wiry man will do far better for indoor life than a plethoric mass of brawn and muscle which needs much exercise to keep in health. Unlimited robustness is not an absolute good, to be pursued at all costs, or else we should make every schoolboy a Hun, living without shelter, and feeding on flaps of raw meat which form the only saddle of his horse. In brief, the need of athletics shows a weakness of body to be remedied, or a physical over-development unsuited to the person's work in life; it is the mark of unfitness, and the need ceases so soon as a man is adapted to his work. The need of spending any considerable time on amusement is the sign of an incapacity, which has to be removed by strengthening the mind in the individual or in the race. The passion for amusement is the sure evidence of a defective education, which has left the mind incapable of continuity, or bare of interests. An important advance therefore lies in better use of the time which is at present wasted in fruitless action of mind or body; better adaptation and education for the work of life will gradually raise the standard so that this form of waste will be avoided. We do not expect a uniform type of horse to be equally adapted to draught or hunting or racing; and similarly we ought to specialise on different types of men fitted for agriculture, or mechanical work, or office work.

The great subject of the waste by renewal of the population in each generation has an immense variety of aspects; but the essential importance of it is seen when we reflect that about half the labour of the world is swallowed up in this renewal. The burden of production, of rearing, of education, and the waste and loss in the process, exceeds that of any other activity, such as supply of food or shelter, for the adult. Hence any possible saving in this great mass of labour, or reduction of waste, is of the first importance to the individual and the race.

Those who have proposed temporary marriage hardly seem to have considered that one of the most important economies adopted, perhaps dating from a pre-human period, was that of permanent marriage. This saved at a stroke the enormous loss of time and energy in the rivalries of repeated mating. The gain to the race by leaving the members free for continuous work is greater than the loss by reproducing inferior stocks. There is no need for the system to have been intentionally adopted for this purpose; but merely a race which economised the time of repeated mating would soon oust a race in which it was customary. For this reason any fancied reconstruction of society without permanent marriage is entirely futile; even if it could be universal, yet the advantage given to the lazy and emotional type of man above the continuous worker would soon pull down the race. One frequent argument for a more revocable union is the number of divorces effected or desired. But nearly all such are among people whose judgment in any other line of life would certainly not be trusted, and who habitually get into trouble over other communal obligations. To abolish marriage for their benefit would be as reasonable as allowing all debts to be repudiated because such people cannot pay their I.O.U.'s. There is moreover a great gain in permanent marriage when judiciously effected, by the new mental pivot of a sense of permanent ensurance of various of the conditions of life, which liberates the attention of both parties from a large number of points, and leaves each free to concentrate attention on a partial phase of feelings and duties. It is a far higher and a spiritual counterpart of a successful business partnership, where each member trusts the other to manage a different part of the affair. All this mental economy and help would be impossible without permanence.

Another wastage which has been greatly reduced in modern times is that of high birth rate and high death rate. The allusions in mediaeval times show a state much like that now described among the Slovenes, where incessant maternity is only balanced by the reduction of children due to filth, neglect, and bad conditions. The modern ideal of a small family carefully tended is an immense advance, both for the individual life and for the saving of waste. But its benefits should be sought and not commanded. If the neglectful, dirty, and wasteful stocks of low type in our midst let their children die off, it is the only balance to their overgrowth, which would soon outnumber the better class of population. The right end to begin at is by insisting on hard work and tidy living, under penal enactments; the saving of the children may then be left to take care of itself. To begin at the sentimental end, as is now the fashion, is to degrade the whole race by swamping it with the worst stocks.

The line of progress in invention is the remorseless "scrapping" of poorer machines. The more serious the progress becomes, the more scrapping needs to be done. We must not be surprised then if a sign of human progress of mind and body should be the large number of inefficients who are thrown out of work on the scrap heap of society.

In another direction advance has been made by general lengthening of the stages of life. The early marriage and early deaths of past times brought the cost of renewal at every twenty years, which was a much severer tax on the community than renewal in thirty or forty years. There is probably also a great benefit in the higher development of parents before each generation. It is well recognised how the later children of a family are more able, and of a more finished quality than the earlier; great examples of such a view in older literature being Joseph and David, and in our own history, Alfred. The longer growth of mind before each generation appears to be a great gain of advance for the race. Among the lower races, by far the most advanced are those like the Zulu, which have a long period of hard training and active life before settling down to family duties.

The often debated problem dealing with the human refuse of bad stocks is one which presses most on an advanced civilisation. We will not do like the Christian Norseman, when he put the ne'er-do-weel family into a wide grave in the churchyard, and wiped his hands of them. We will not even leave them to exterminate themselves by their own follies, vices, and ignorance. But if the state takes up the burden of such wastrels it must have an entire control of them. Responsibility without rule is worse than rule without responsibility. The only safe course is a rigorous enforcement of parental duties; with the alternative of penal servitude in state workshops, the mother and children together, the father elsewhere. There is no middle course, of semi-maintenance by school meals, which will not injure the children by their being correspondingly neglected at home, injure the parents by lowering the spur of necessity to work, and injure the state by flooding it with the worst types.

Much more drastic treatment of the unfit has been advocated, as by Dr. Rentoul. In a future period of civilisation a logical course of treatment might have a chance of adoption; but in our age any serious changes of the habits of thought and action will not be tolerated, unless brought about very gradually under small influences, such as we have noticed as acting through taxation. What we need is to try to give effect to the gospel of giving to him that hath, and taking away from him that hath not. The most likely opening for such a line of advance would be giving partial state maintenance to the best stocks, so as to ensure large returns from them, and taxing down the worst stocks—exactly the opposite course to the present craze. Let us try to realise if there be a practical system for this advance.

We should need a Board of Health in each area of about 10,000 inhabitants, composed of three examining doctors. Every child on leaving school, or at about fifteen, should be examined, merely by a glance at the greater bulk of normal cases, but carefully in extreme cases. The finest 5 per cent. both mentally (shown by school-leaving certificates) and physically as well, should be premiated by assisted higher education of suitable type. The worst 10 per cent. should be remanded to a training school where physical and mental development would be scientifically carried out, and as much profit as possible made from their labour toward self-support. This would reclaim the hooligan class effectually before they run amuck, and help on those who need care and assistance to get a good footing in life. No course could possibly be kinder for the weaklings. At the age of twenty a further examination of both the best and the worst classes should ensue. The best half of the most able should receive a certificate granting them practically free support for all children they may have after they have reached the age of twenty-five. The worst half of the most incapable, or 5 per cent. of all, should be required to report residence during their lives to the Board of Health of their district, and informed that if they had any children they must pay a heavy fine, or else go into servitude. This would practically mean the segregation of the lowest class of the unfits under compulsory work. It would be cheaper to the state to keep them thus at work, than to pay poor rates to maintain this submerged twentieth and their helpless families.

In all these proposals there would be no Socialistic constraint of the great majority, which is normal in mind and body. But such attention to the unfit would be merely adding a porch to the poorhouse, the hospital, and the asylum, and there sorting over the material which can be possibly saved from a bad end. The nine-tenths of people who were ordinary would be thus left even more free for individual growth than they now are, when hampered by the inefficient residue.

We might not exclude the thought of another favourite idea of some reformers which in a modified shape might be allowed to gradually take root. Since Spencer Wells familiarised the world with an operation for which he will always be remembered, hundreds of women have gladly improved their health by a safe treatment, which, if anything, threatened to become too fashionable. Every woman who was, as above, required to report her residence as being unfit, and being liable to heavy penalties on having children, should be offered the option of perfect freedom if she chose the operation. The marriage of such women, with men who were condemned as unfit, would entirely free both parties from reporting and inspection in future, and give the best prospect of happy lives to the weakest and less capable of the community, free from what would be only too truly "encumbrances" to such people. This course might give a permanently safe line of improvement, without any consequent stigma or hardship in the world around; and so gentle a change—beneficial to the individual as well as the community—seems not outside of future possibilities. At least such a course would be the more practicable form of such a proposed change. Of course, no such legislation would be complete in its action, and evasions would often occur. But if it checked even one half of the growth of bad stock it would be an enormous gain.

We now turn to other lines of advance from the communal point of view. The old system of community, in which all the nations of northern Europe lived, was based on each man being his brother's keeper; every one was liable to fines if any relative committed a crime, in proportion to their closeness of relation. To this succeeded individual responsibility, both in property and in penalties. This raises the question whether it is possible to separate property and penalty in communism. At present the tendency is to a state communism, begun by heavy death duties and taxation (for a variety of purposes which the taxed do not use or require), amounting to a quarter of all property. If this system is extended, and property becomes more largely hypothecated to public purposes, then when a man is condemned in heavy damages or fines his neighbours will suffer by reduction of the rateable property. Will it not be thought more fair for his relatives to be responsible for the public loss? And if so, we indirectly revert to the payment by relatives of a share of all fines.

To anyone who has had experience of combined labour, it is obvious how two people working together do not perform twice as much as one alone. There is always a loss by one waiting on the action of another; and it appears as if the amount of work done only increased as the square root of the number of people working together. Hence the group-work of communistic taste is very wasteful. This is practically seen among the Slavs in Russia, where communal agriculture—which is extolled by its admirers—produces far less per acre on fine land, than is obtained by individual agriculture on poor land in England. Again it is notorious how the Irishman who goes to work apart among individualist people, then flourishes as he never does when held down by the communal claims socially enforced among his own countrymen. This is the root of the success of the Irish out of their own land. Thus we see how communal action is the more wasteful form of labour; and how it was a great advance for man when he made individual success entirely depend upon individual labour.

Another question is what form of government will most favour the strong breeds and the new strains of ability as they arise? Certainly any system which ties the actions of one person with those of others is detrimental to ability. The better man is held back by the co-operation with others, by their lower example, and by their direct disfavour. Any communistic tie is unfavourable to advance; and it was a great step in favour of new and improved variations when each individual stood entirely on his own resources, and was not bound by his inferior kin. In every way, therefore, individualism was a line of advance for men in the past; and the principles which are involved promise that it will yet likewise be the main line of future advance. If we look practically at which class of government is associated with advance of ideas, of inventions, and new types of thought, let us put on one hand the more individualist countries, America, England, Germany, and perhaps France, and on the other hand the more communist countries, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Greece, Australia, and especially New Zealand. Can we question for a moment which type of country is most advancing the intellect and abilities of man?

But we must not forget that Union is strength, the motto that Belgium strangely took on separating from Holland; and combined action has great advantages. In this view the beneficial combination is that to which all contribute without one being a hindrance to the other. How far can these benefits be gained without loss to the improved individual? The main principle is that all combinations must be entirely voluntary, and have no suspicion of coercion about them. Where even "peaceful persuasion" comes in, ability is crushed, and the whole community is the loser by it. Coercive union of individuals is the unpardonable sin against human nature, because it kills the hopes of the future. The safe line of advance is combination by large clubs for every purpose, with healthy rivalry between similar institutions—benefit clubs, co-operative stores, co-operative works, holiday clubs, and insurance of all kinds. Every inducement should be held out to join in such combinations, giving them the assistance and security of official auditors, as is provided for friendly societies at present Every line in which any class can profitably unite for economic action, on an entirely voluntary basis, and without any tie on the individual beyond his share in the enterprise, is a clear gain to society. In this way the taxation for these ends would fall on those who benefit by them, and not on those who do not want them. Thus the individual would be free to take, or leave alone, the benefits provided; and many purposes to which taxation is now applied would be far better effected by gigantic clubs of those classes who want such assistance. Taxation must be strictly limited to those purposes in which all persons must necessarily share, such as protection and justice.

Hence a future line of advance lies in a great development of purely voluntary co-operation in any one class, in order to obtain the advantages of combination. In one direction it is clear what immense savings might be thus effected. Co-operative purchase of supplies and cooking, with distribution of hot meals to subscribers, would save perhaps a third of the cost of living to the working classes. And if the prepaid weekly subscriptions might be deducted before wages were received, such a system would go far to solve the question of proper feeding of children. Again, the education of hand-workers in the subject of economics can be best furthered by the experience gained in co-operative works, and even on this ground alone every encouragement should be given to such combinations of workers.

Another line of advance now coming into practical view is the use of various nationalities, according to their abilities for different kinds of works in foreign countries. We have seen, in Europe, Italian miners taken to many lands for tunnelling and submarine work, we have Norwegians largely employed in our shipping, and English engineers find many careers abroad. Of recent years the great mass of cheap skilled labour of China and Japan has been getting its due share of the world's work. The infamous manner in which the Chinese have been treated in America is apparently now nearly at an end; the Republic where all men are free and equal will be coerced into fairness by the reasonable refusal to take American goods as long as the Americans will not take Chinese labour. In British Columbia the Japanese are objected to because they are more industrious, more economical, more sober and quiet than the white, who, as their inferior in these principal respects, cannot bear their competition. The Americans are likewise trying to prevent their industry, while at the same time wishing to make the Panama Canal with Chinese labour; in this they will probably be rebuffed, unless the whole national position is put on a fair basis. The objections to Chinese labour in South Africa have never been put on the real fact—tacitly felt, though unexpressed—that the white dreads the competition of an economical people. First they were said to be tortured in slavery, a lie which served its big political purpose until it was found that they would not leave; then the danger of public crime and burglary was put forward, until it was shown that there were fewer criminals in proportion than among other inhabitants; then a cry of immorality was raised, until the Colonial Secretary stated that the Kaffirs who would replace them had just the same habits. Now the Transvaal refuses to destroy its own welfare by the falseness of playing with any of these cries; but such hatred to free labour has all served the political ends which were intended by an unscrupulous party that revels in keeping a conscience. Meanwhile the Prussian Board of Agriculture desires to import Chinese agriculturists into Germany; and it will be strange if the great German coalfields in South Wales are not run by the cheapest labour that can be obtained. We have no laws to prevent Chinese working freely in England, and we cannot afford to wreck our great China trade by starting a gross injustice of exclusion.

If objections are felt—by a people so immoral as ourselves—to the toleration of any habit of foreign residents, let it be legislated upon equally for all nationalities in England. In this way the Canadians expelled the rowdy negroes who had taken refuge with them in the days of slavery. A rigid and impartial punishment of rowdyism cleared out the undesirable negro, and left the inoffensive behind. The only possible course of safety is not by any laws directed against any one race; for when such laws break down in the growth of the future there will be a terrible economic—if not political—catastrophe. Rigid laws to check evils of all inhabitants of a country alike are sound and safe, and will prevent most of the objectionable results of immigration, Jewish, Italian, Chinese, or any other. With such laws a great advance can be made by the free use of that kind of labour which is most adapted to the work, whatever source it may come from. Such must inevitably be the course of the distant future; and those who play with holding what they please to call a "white man's land" will find that "mean whites" of hot countries are wholly inferior to other races which are fitted for such a position. Bret Harte has well stated "the conscious hate and fear with which inferiority always regards the possibility of even-handed justice, and which is the key-note to the vulgar clamour about servile and degraded races."

Another subject which has seemed to be a most promising line of advance is that of the reduction or abolition of warfare. We must not limit our view in this to open and direct violence, there are other forms of warfare quite as effective, and causing as much, or more, misery in the total. The warfare of trade is always going on, each nation is pushing its neighbours as much as it can for its own benefit. Some gain benefit by closed markets and bleeding a monopoly, others benefit by open markets, and each fights for what it wants by trade methods backed with force. The free trader honestly believes that all this can and should be abolished by each country producing what it is best fitted for, and a tacit or legal understanding that there is to be no trade rivalry on the various lines thus assigned to different countries. Such would be the only system which could abolish trade warfare. Under such a system advance would be greatly checked, if not killed. Look at the history of quinine; only twenty years ago it was 10s. an ounce, and the growers (though competing among themselves) did not think they could improve the process or reduce the price. The chemist in Europe stepped into the market and smashed the old system by much cheaper artificial quinine. But the growers, sooner than be ruined, invented extraction by petroleum, and brought down the price to 1s. 6d. an ounce. Now here were two acts of violent trade warfare between countries; the result being such an improvement that instead of one of the most life-saving medicines being a luxury, it can now be used six times more freely than before. Without trade war this would never have come about. Free trade implies free competition, and that is trade-warfare.

Another form of trade war is holding a country for the sake of a monopoly of trade, thus enabling a group of manufacturers—say of France—to tax all the inhabitants under their government, especially in colonies—as Algiers, Madagascar, Tahiti, &c. This is simply a form of tribute, like the taxation levied by Rome on various conquered countries; it holds back the taxed countries. If other countries wish to get a share of that trade they will have to fight, by trade or by violence, to conquer the right to join in it. And a trade war which shut, say, all English markets to France, until all French markets were open to England, would not violate any economic principle. It is meeting force by force, exclusion by exclusion; and no shudder at our using trade war ourselves will prevent for an instant the trade war which is used against us. Our principles will not weigh a feather in other nations' practice. But warfare is a temporary measure, and retaliation must only be temporary. The great danger would be in establishing a permanent system of taxation of foreign productions, which would be worked to the utmost by trades unions at home, in order to enable them to bleed the country to death by high prices. This terrible danger of ruin is the main reason against protective duties, though seldom, if ever, noticed in public discussion of the subject.

Another form of warfare is the relative burden of armaments. This may be called slow combustion, in contrast to the open flame of war. Now if there is no joint limitation—as at present—the most long-sighted and powerful nation stands to win at this game; the result is the same as if actual war were in progress, but the terrors and destruction of war are avoided. But if there be a joint limitation of armament—as some hope may be established—it must be on such a basis that no one state is left in a condition of clear superiority to another, otherwise it would tie the inferior state to be in a permanently inferior condition. And the qualities which will win will be subterfuge, evasion, and bad faith; whichever state contrives to be better prepared than another behind the agreement will stand to win when the war does come. In the unlimited condition the qualities win which are those best for mankind in all other respects; in the limited condition the qualities will win which are worst for mankind otherwise. The real fact is that great armaments are like great states, a needful condition of the new speed of communication. When it took two or three months to move an army from central Europe to England, we had two or three months to prepare; when it takes only two or three days we must be always prepared. No one can put the clock back, and steam is the end of small armaments. Within a generation of quick transport being started, big armaments were found needful, and will never cease to be needful. Great permanent combinations of states are the only line of relief under the new conditions, which bind mankind for ever in the future.

Let us look now at direct war. What are the qualities which tell for success, looking to the wars of recent times with which we are familiar? In the brains of the army the main qualities have been (1) Foresight; (2) Combining power; (3) Honesty; (4) Imagination; (5) Skill; and in the muscle of the army (6) Physique; (7) Industry; (8) Tenacity. In short, success in war requires precisely the same qualities as success in peace. Even if the cause is bad, yet it is the best man all round that wins. In each case recently the winner has been the better power for future civilisation. War then may be defined as the concentration into a year of the same results which would take place by economic causes within perhaps a generation or a century. So far as violent changes are undesirable—as we have noticed before—so far war is undesirable. But on the purely humanitarian view it may be better to flee before one's enemies for three months than have three years' famine; it may be better to kill 100,000 in a brief campaign than starve a million during a whole generation by bad trade owing to slow economic changes. War strikes the imagination and impresses the thoughtless with its horror, but a starving peace may be a far more painful process.

It is difficult to see that any of the causes of trade war, armament war, or open war are at all likely to be less in the future than they have been in the past; and if the causes are the same we must expect like effects. Nor do we see that any result of these different kinds of war is injurious to that character of man which is requisite for his advance in better lines. Each of these forms of competition tends to give an advantage to the best qualified race, and to promote the most beneficial strains of character. On the general principle that slow evolution is preferable to violent changes we must look for advance by intensified trade war rather than by armaments, and by the strain of armament rather than by open war.

A direction in which great improvements of organisation may be attained would be in better adaptation of checks. So far as possible, checks should be abolished by establishing interests in the same direction between different parties. The profit-sharing movement is an excellent beginning of what needs to be fully and exactly carried out. The checks of inspection, which have been so greatly multiplied lately, are peculiarly liable to abuses; and a system of fewer and far superior inspectors, much less inspection, and much heavier penalties to correspond, would in the long run prove the safer line. The great check by popular election is very wasteful, a general election costing the country over a million pounds in various ways. Precisely as fair a check would be gained by summoning one in a hundred of the electors by lot at the day of election; and the nursing of a constituency would be much diminished.

Lastly, let us look at the final type to which man will probably be led by natural survival. This enquiry is limited throughout to those qualities which are the product of external causes; and no attempt is made to estimate the more spiritual side of man or his higher mental development. For that we have not the same physical basis of research, and it would be a fruitless mixture to include such considerations—however important—in an enquiry which by its scope might be similarly applicable to lower organisms. We are therefore dealing here only with the physical basis of civilisation.

For the sake of safety from aggression and prevention of small quarrels, federations of great size must prevail; while those federations which allow for the greatest diversity between the states will prove more adaptable and vigorous. Similarly, states which allow of the greatest diversity of life to the individual will succeed best, by the promotion of the most vigorous strains. More systematic law will be needed between states. This may perhaps be on the line of all contracts being on the seller's law, and all marriage on the husband's law, regardless of change of residence; and all contracts being suable on their own law in any state.

The greatest empires have in the past allowed great diversity between states. Persia left each land to its own laws, and only required the control of a satrap, a small tribute, and unification of army and navy. Rome interfered very little with local law, and left the principal cities autonomous throughout the empire. Britain has carefully preserved local law where a system existed, as in India, the Cape, and many varieties nearer home, even in England itself. The United States have kept local laws of states and local legislatures. Hence it is likely that groups of states with great variety of type will prevail, only unified by a common system of defence and compulsory taxation for that purpose. It is even conceivable that such a system might be established in England, if the Privy Council was supplemented by Colonial ex-ministers of long standing, and was granted powers of assessment over all parliaments for the common defence.

The type of man which must prevail is that of the greatest industry and greatest individuality; each man belonging to many voluntary societies for various united benefits. Agriculture, the main industry of man, will be far more elaborate and economical; as much so as the present Chinese system, or even carried to further detail with machinery. And the unlimited supply of atmospheric nitrates, now in sight, will also greatly increase production. Profit-sharing or the shareholding of all workers must gradually prevail in all industries. The growth of rapidity of thought and action, and the economy of organisation, will enable a living to be earned with perhaps half a day's labour, or less. The large balance of time, beyond that which will be needed for bare necessities, will be spent on a much greater development of natural resources and conveniences of life; each man will thus enjoy the result of an immense accumulated capital of improvements and benefits. In short, each one will be rich, either by the cheapness of articles or abundance of money, a merely relative question. The accumulated wealth of improvement will leave a smaller profit on labour, or in other words capital will command a very low interest. Therefore there will be less inducement to work for saving; and hence spare time will be more readily employed in the personal quest of knowledge, and enlargement of mental interests, in literature, in science, in history, and in the arts, or among the less capable in mere amusements. But the higher the social organisation and reward of ability, the more intense will be the weeding of the less capable, and the more highly sustained will be the general level of ability.

That fluctuation will occur is inevitable; but it will be gradually understood that the utmost freedom of labour and communication is the only way to allow changes to be gradual, and so to avert the great and disgraceful catastrophes of forcible migration of hordes. Hence there will tend to be an incessant flow of labour from country to country, assisted by international labour bureaus: thus the wage of any given ability will be equalised over the world, and hence prices of all produce will equalise also. The whole of this action will further enforce the power of ability, and tend to end or mend the less capable.

We must, then, look for a world with approximately equal civilisation and prices in all lands; but with each people developed in their own lines of ability, in accord with climate and conditions, to such a point that no other people can compete with them in their own conditions. The equatorial races tending to have less initiative and vigour than those of colder climates, the equatorial lands will therefore tend to be each attached to a temperate land which will supply more energy to their development; while a steady drift of population from colder to hotter lands will take place, as for a generation or two they will retain a greater vigour. Thus the tropics will be the seat of the keenest competition and extinction of races; while the borders of the arctic regions will always afford most room for human increase.

So far as peoples turn their backs on the inevitable goal, they will have to painfully retrace their course, or else disappear by extinction; while the peoples who move toward the lines of success will be the fathers of the future. Will they be found in East or West?