ral
law of the Survival of the Fittest. It was an attempt, I say; and
it ended, as we know, in disaster; for it established instead, so
far as it was successful, the law of the Survival of the
Majority, and tyrannized first over the minority and then over
the individual.

"But it was a well-meant attempt; since its instinct was
perfectly right, that competition is not the highest law of the
Universe. And there were several other ideals in Socialism that
were most commendable in theory: for example, the idea that the
Society sanctifies and safeguards the individual, not the
individual the Society; that obedience is a much-neglected
virtue, and so forth.

"Then, suddenly almost, it seems to have dawned upon the world
that all the _ideals_ of Socialism (apart from its methods and
its dogmas) had been the ideals of Christianity; and that the
Church had, in her promulgation of the Law of Love, anticipated
the Socialist's discovery by about two thousand years. Further,
that in the Religious Orders these ideals had been actually
incarnate; and that by the doctrine of Vocation--that is by the
freedom of the individual to submit himself to a superior--the
rights of the individual were respected and the rights of the
Society simultaneously vindicated.

"A very good example of all this is to be found in the
Poor-law system.

"You remember that before the Reformation, and in Catholic
countries long after, there was no Poor-law system, because the
Religious Houses looked after the sick and needy. Well, when the
Religious Houses were destroyed in England the State had to do
their work. You could not simply flog beggars out of existence,
as Elizabeth tried to do. Then the inevitable happened, and it
began to be a mark of disgrace to be helped by the State in a
workhouse: people often preferred to starve. Then at the
beginning of the twentieth century a well-meant attempt was made,
in the Old-Age Pensions and George's State Insurance Act, to
remedy this and to help the poor in a manner that would not
injure their self-respect. Of course that failed, too. It is
incredible that statesmen did not see it must be so. Old-Age
Pensions, too, and State-Insurance (so soon as it was socially
digested), began to be considered a mark of disgrace--for the
simple cause that it is not the receiving of money that is
resented, but the motive for which the money is given and the
position of the giver. The State can only give for economic
reaso