CH. xviil] the evolution OF SOCIET. . 193 



the less habitually misconceived — that progress has been on 

 the whole the most constant and prominent feature of the 

 history of a considerable and important portion of mankind. 

 Around this cardinal fact have clustered, as I just hinted, 

 many serious misconceptions. The illustrious tliiukers of 

 the last century, who endeavoured to study human history 

 from a scientific point of view, were unconsciously led into 

 an error from which contemporary writers have not as yet 

 entirely freed themselves. The followers of Turgot and 

 Coudorcet were prone to regard progress as something neces- 

 sary and universal. They attempted to account for it, much 

 as Lamarck tried to explain organic development, as the 

 continuous and ubiquitous manifestation of an occult, in- 

 herent tendency toward perfection. Subsequent literature 

 exhibits many traces of this metaphysical conception. Thus 

 Dr. AVhately, in his edition of Archbishop King's discourses, 

 asserts that " civilization is the natural state of man, since 

 he has evidently 'a natural tendency toward it." Upon which 

 it has been aptly remarked that, " by a parity of reasoning, 

 old age is the natural state of man, since he has evidently 

 a natural tendency towards it." Indeed, as this comparison 

 is intended to show, it is difficult to use such expressions 

 as "natural state" and "natural tendency" without becoming 

 involved in a confusion of ideas. And to ascribe progress 

 to an inherent tendency, without taking into account the 

 complex set of conditions amid which alone that tendency 

 can be realized, is to give us an empty formula instead of 

 d scientific explanation. Whether the individual will die 

 young or reach old age, and whether the community will 

 remain barbarous or become civilized, depends, to a great 

 extent, upon environing circumstances ; and no theory of 

 progress can have any value which omits the consideration 

 of this fact. Mr. William Adam labours under the confusion 

 of ideas here signalized, when he finds fault with Sir G. C. 

 Lewis for upholding the doc'iiine of progress while admitting 



VOL. IL O 



