CHAP, xvi REITERATION OF DARWINISM 167 



however, is dictated by the egoistic instinct. Eight 

 action is a resultant of these forces, or a compromise 

 between them. Here, then, our great Darwinian in morals 

 suddenly becomes a Spencerian in morals. And he goes 

 all the way with Mr. Spencer. He looks forward to an 

 age of perfected balance, when good conduct will be 

 automatic ; when there will presumably be a moral 

 instinct ! Natural selection, steadily killing off the in- 

 ferior types, will at last produce that " crowning race." 



Now, is this fair ? Truly, it is easy to show that 

 morality is an outgrowth of sympathy if you define 

 what is " moral " as equivalent to what is sympathetic ! 

 All the time we are reading Mr. Sutherland's record of 

 moral evolution we suppose that we are being shown the 

 gradual origin of real central goodness, of that spirit 

 which embodies itself in right conduct, and does so 

 willingly. Suddenly we learn that our impression was 

 wrong ; that was not what were being shown ; we were 

 looking on at the production of one constituent of 

 goodness, but the other constituent, which is no less 

 important, is quite a different thing ! Then were the 

 morally advanced Romans, who succumbed before the 

 barbarian inroads, not really better men, but just more 

 sympathetic ? The whole book had need to be rewritten. 

 Mr. Sutherland must not talk of morality if he has in 

 view only one half of its conditions. Language has its 

 rights, and the truths embodied in language must not 

 be flouted, or they will take their revenge. 



Moreover, it seems very doubtful whether Mr. 

 Sutherland is entitled to assume that natural selection 

 has developed sympathy, but has developed it in un- 

 certain measure, so that it may be perhaps too much in 

 amount, perhaps too little. Natural selection has taught 

 the lower and the higher animals exactly how many 



