Tired of reading? Add this page to your Bookmarks or Favorites and finish it later.
|
|
The hereditary principle is good, because it is founded on fact and
nature. If men's minds come into the world blank sheets of paper--
which I much doubt--every other part and faculty of them comes in
stamped with hereditary tendencies and peculiarities. There are
such things as transmitted capabilities for good and for evil; and
as surely as the offspring of a good horse or dog is likely to be
good, so is the offspring of a good man, and still more of a good
woman. If the parents have any special ability, their children will
probably inherit it, at least in part; and over and above, will have
it developed in them by an education worthy of their parents and
themselves. If man were--what he is not--a healthy and normal
species, a permanent hereditary caste might go on intermarrying, and
so perpetuate itself. But the same moral reason which would make
such a caste dangerous--indeed, fatal to the liberty and development
of mankind, makes it happily impossible. Crimes and follies are
certain, after a few generations, to weaken the powers of any human
caste; and unless it supplements its own weakness by mingling again
with the common stock of humanity, it must sink under that weakness,
as the ancient noblesse sank by its own vice. Of course there were
exceptions. The French Revolution brought those exceptions out into
strong light; and like every day of judgment, divided between the
good and the evil. But it lies not in exceptions to save a caste,
or an institution; and a few Richelieus, Liancourts, Rochefoucaulds,
Noailles, Lafayettes were but the storks among the cranes involved
in the wholesale doom due not to each individual, but to a system
and a class.
Profligacy, pride, idleness--these are the vices which we have to
lay to the charge of the Teutonic Nobility of the Ancien Regime in
France especially; and (though in a less degree perhaps) over the
whole continent of Europe. But below them, and perhaps the cause of
them all, lay another and deeper vice--godlessness--atheism.
I do not mean merely want of religion, doctrinal unbelief. I mean
want of belief in duty, in responsibility. Want of belief that
there was a living God governing the universe, who had set them
their work, and would judge them according to their work. And
therefore, want of belief, yea, utter unconsciousness, that they
were set in their places to make the masses below them better men;
to impart to them their own civilisation, to raise them to their own
level. They would have shrunk from that which I just now defined as
the true duty of an aristocracy, just because it would have seemed
to them madness to abolish themselves. But the process of abolition
went on, nevertheless, only now from without instead of from within.
So it must always be, in such a case. If a ruling class will not
try to raise the masses to their own level, the masses will try to
drag them down to theirs. That sense of justice which allowed
privileges, when they were as strictly official privileges as the
salary of a judge, or the immunity of a member of the House of
Commons; when they were earned, as in the Middle Age, by severe
education, earnest labour, and life and death responsibility in
peace and war, will demand the abolition of those privileges, when
no work is done in return for them, with a voice which must be
heard, for it is the voice of truth and justice.
|