Socialism. "You must
let the individual make his will a reality in the conduct of his life,"
Bosanquet remarks in an essay already quoted, "in order that it may be
possible for him consciously to entertain the social purpose as a
constituent of his will. Without these conditions there is no social
organism and no moral Socialism.... Each unit of the social organism has
to embody his relations with the whole in his own particular work and
will; and in order to do this the individual must have a strength and
depth in himself proportional to and consisting of the relations which
he has to embody." Grant Allen long since clearly set forth the harmony
between Individualism and Socialism in an article published in the
_Contemporary Review_ in 1879.

[256] An instructive illustration is furnished by the question of the
relation of the sexes, and elsewhere (_Studies in the Psychology of
Sex_, Vol. VI, "Sex in Relation to Society") I have sought to show that
we must distinguish between marriage, which is directly the affair of
the individuals primarily concerned, and procreation, which is mainly
the concern of society.

[257] See, for instance, the opinion of the former Chief Inspector of
Elementary Schools in England, Mr. Edmond Holmes, _What Is and What
Might Be_ (1911). He points out that true education must be
"self-realization," and that the present system of "education" is
entirely opposed to self-realization. Sir John Gorst, again, has
repeatedly attacked the errors of the English State system of
education.

[258] The phrase _Laissez faire_ is sometimes used as though it were the
watchword of a party which graciously accorded a free hand to the Devil
to do his worst. As a matter of fact, it was simply a phrase adopted by
the French economists of the eighteenth century to summarize the
conclusion of their arguments against the antiquated restrictions which
were then stifling the trade and commerce of France (see G. Weuleresse,
_Le Mouvement Physiocratique en France_, 1910, Vol. II, p. 17). Properly
understood, it is not a maxim which any party need be ashamed to own.

[259] I would again repeat that I do not regard legislation as a channel
of true eugenic reform. As Bateson well says (_op. cit._ p. 15); "It is
not the tyrannical and capricious interference of a half-informed
majority which can safely mould or purify a population, but rather that
simplification of instinct for which we ever hope, which fuller
knowledge