G.— ENGINEERING 177 



notion that naotives recognisable as moral can have place in international 

 affairs seems now to be rejected as impracticable idealism. Force and 

 deceit, it appears, although unpleasant are held to have ' survival value ' : 

 the gangster compels our unwilling admiration, at least in the field of world 

 affairs. But what if there should be something in the notion, that because 

 success in the life-struggle can come not only by individual strength but 

 also by ability to associate and combine, morality has survival value as 

 being (thus regarded) one of the factors which make association possible ? 

 A bank may come to ruin not only through fraudulent or incompetent 

 direction, but because its depositors, panic-stricken, seek each his own 

 legitimate interests at the expense of the common weal : may not a less 

 narrow concept of moral obligation be necessary to the continuance of 

 our civilisation, even as wider than national horizons are necessary in the 

 spheres of economics and finance ? Perhaps this ' idealism ' is not so 

 impracticable after all ? 



Collective security attained by higher standards of fair dealing — it is 

 an epitome of man's progress from the cave to association in the village, 

 in towns, and in nations, and I see no ground for believing that the notion 

 can never transcend national barriers. Men write as though it were 

 new — a product of post-armistice utopianism. That it is not new let these 

 sentences, none written less than 100 years ago, bear witness (Guedalla 

 1931): 



' Soyez sur qu'en politique 11 n'y a rien de stable que ce qui convient aux 

 interets de tout le monde ; et qu'il faut regarder un peu plus loin que soi-meme.' 



"... although the aggrandizement and security of the power of one's own 

 country is the duty of every man, all nations may depend upon it that the best 

 security for power, and for every advantage now possessed, or to be acquired, 

 is to be found in the reduction of the power and influence of the grand disturber.' 



' If we lose our character for truth and good faith, we shall have but little to 

 stand upon in this country.' 



' I would sacrifice Gwalior, or every frontier of India, ten times over, in order 

 to preserve our credit for scrupulous good faith, and the advantages and honor 

 we gained by the late war and the peace. . . . What brought me through many 

 difficulties in the war, and the negociations for peace ? The British good faith, 

 and nothing else.' 



If this be utopianism, then some of our historical judgments will need 

 revision ; for all were said or written by Arthur, Duke of Wellington — 

 a man not lightly to be charged with saying what he did not mean. 



16. You will say, now I am drifting perilously near to politics ! It is 

 precisely the point I want to make : I say that inevitably, when instead 

 of science we discuss its impact on the life of the community, we must 

 verge on politics, because what concerns the community is politics, both 

 etymologically and in fact. The old convention, that science should have 

 no politics, seems to me sane and wise : how to preserve it if as scientists 

 we are to concern ourselves with the life of the community, that is a 

 question I must leave to others more subtly-minded. For myself I see 

 no reason why as scientists we should meet to discuss anything but science. 

 Contrary to common belief, it is not our habit to pursue science throughout 

 the whole of every day ; and on all counts I hold it were better that we 

 came to political discussions in hours- of leisure, unlabelled, than give 



