not justified in either case, and who believe even more strongly that if we accept things as inevitable we make them inevitable. We may ask, moreover, why if human nature is so poor a thing we should entrust our destinies blindfold to human beings who come to the front in the vicissitudes of party politics and who may perhaps be no better than ourselves. The ethics of party politics are not encouraging. Or if we turn to the prospects of creating universal prosperity by Act of Parliament, we may ask what assurance we have that this is an ideal capable of attainment. All that we know so far is that the legislation of the last twenty-five years which has been directed to this end has brought us no nearer our goal. One measure of relief has succeeded another, yet the cry of poverty is louder than ever, and there is constant asseveration that the "rich are growing richer and the poor growing poorer." Prominent Socialists are beginning to give voice to their doubts. The social question, they say, can never be settled by doles; "nothing is of the slightest economic value to the working man that does not increase his wages"—every other endowment is "charity, covert or overt" ("New Age," 191 1). Yet if history has anything to teach us it is that doles of relief act in supplementation of wages and keep them low, and in that manner prevent the very solution of the problem of poverty which everyone most earnestly desires.
Yes ! we are told all this may have been true in the past, but with the advance of science nothing is impossible. Failures in the past do not constitute a valid reason why we should not try again. And it is loose reasoning of this kind which has impelled us again and again to repeat old failures under the name of experiments, which is surely a fatuous proceeding. Let us experiment by all means, but let us be sure either that the experiments are new ones
