CHAP, xii DARWINISM IN POLITICS: BAGEHOT 125 



become, in the light of modern science, "an 

 antiquity." 



Speaking more strictly of human or social evolu- 

 tion, Mr. Bagehot makes a very strong statement of 

 the part presumably played by nerve tissue in render- 

 ing such evolution possible. No one, he thinks, 

 will be able to understand evolution in history, if he 

 has not this material basis of evolution before his 

 eyes. In other words, we have here an act of adhe- 

 rence to Spencer's position to Spencer's even more 

 than Darwin's against attacks such as have more 

 recently been made by Weismann. For we have 

 here not merely an assertion of the inheritance of 

 acquired qualities, but an assertion of the physical 

 inheritance of the results of mental processes. 

 Further, we find Bagehot here emphasising an 

 element which Leslie Stephen though apparently 

 believing in it was content to drop out of sight all 

 through his ethical treatise. Further still, we observe 

 that for the moment Bagehot is not transferring 

 Darwinian ideas to a new sphere, and asking how 

 they apply there, but rather showing us how politics 

 are influenced by Darwinism in its direct bearing 

 upon the physical basis of mind. Man is a political 

 animal, but he is primarily an animal. We cannot 

 appreciate how his politics evolve unless we have 

 formed just ideas of the process by which he himself 

 evolves. Still, in all this, Bagehot is only preparing 

 the way for his special contribution, which consists 

 rather in extending the biological analogy than in 

 claiming a wide range for biology proper. In point 

 of fact, he might drop out this illustration altogether ; 

 he might surrender his strong belief in the inheri- 



