BOOKS.

METAPHYSICAL PACIFICISM.•

Ma. BERTRAND Russ= evidently belongs to a class who are not generally very popular in private life, and whose views on public ques- tions are almost invariably accepted with much reserve alike by practical politicians and rational political thinkers. He is " a superior—indeed, a very impeder—person." A penalty has to be paid for the assumption of this superiority. Its possessor is naturally constrained to some extent to load a life of moral and intellectual aloofness from his fellow- creatures. Mr. Russell has at times found the isolation to be " almost unbearable." Nevertheless, the cause which he champions—namely, the development of " new thought "—is so ennobling as to be worthy of some degree of mental martyrdom. " Without some willingness to be lonely, new thought cannot be achieved."

Being thus, politically speaking, the inhabitant of an eremitic solitude, it is almost impossible to class Mr. Bertrand Russell in any recognized category of politicians or political thinkers. If he is anything, he is a Synditalist ; but Syndicalism does not satisfy all his aspirations. It is, however, deserving of greater sympathy than Socialism, because its attitude towards both the State and private property is uncom- promisingly hostile, whereas Socialism favours State action, and merely aims at justice in distribution and " e tolerable existence for producers." He cordially detests all institutions based on authority. They must necessarily " involve injustice." Moreover, they "harden the walls of the Ego, making them a prison instead of a window." Nevertheless, he is not an Anarchist. He makes a welcome concession to the up- holders of law and order when he says that " it would be inconvenient if peaceable citizens were constantly in imminent risk of being robbed and murdered." Ho thus recognizes the importance of the rile assigned to a policeman. As regards public) law his views are passing strange. " Although," he says, "law is better than force, law is still not tho best way of settling disputes." The best way is to set aside the legal maxima which would be applied by the Hague Tribunal and to decide • Prieeeeet of Social Reconstruction, By Bertrand Bumsell, F.R.S. London: Mien and unnin, lea. net.]

all questions " in the same sense in which they would be decided by war " ; in other words, to allow the verdict always to be given in favour of the strongest, thus rendering war unnecessary. This view, Mr. Bertrand Russell very correctly remarks, " may be thought by some to be immoral," but it is justified on the ground that "it is sheer cant to speak of a contest of might against right, and at the same time to hope for a victory of the right." There seems in this case to be some confusion of thought between that " justice " for which Mr. Bertrand Russell so vigorously contends, and the means proposed for attaining it.

It might be thought that Mr. Bertrand Russell's strong democratic proclivities would lead him to sympathize with the triumph which Labour has achieved in Australia. But each is far from being the case. Australian institutions are tainted with patriotism, and patriotism is nearly akin to militarism. Moreover, the Australians, in oommon with other peoples, have committed the cardinal sin of encouraging " the promotion of efficiency in war," and this is the " chief harm " which can be wrought by any State.

But although Mr. Bertrand Russell lives in a political solitude as lonesome as that of Coleridge's Ancient Mariner, he is manifestly able, to a limited extent, to combine with other groups on the vivifying basis of a number of common hatreds. His dislike of the rich, whom he of course stigmatizes by the epithet of " idle," is very whole-hearted. As to financiers, it would show " gross ignorance of the world " to appeal to them in the name of that patriotism which Mr. Russell, in treating of other branches of his subject, so much contemn& " They are allowed their 43 per cent., and an increase of interest on their Consols," the latter being a fact of which holders of Consols are as yet ignorant. Moreover, the State has not so far withdrawn police pro- tection from them. Why is this scandal allowed to continue ? It is, Mr. Bertrand Russell says, " not due to the difficulty of such a measure, but only to the fact that great wealth wins genuine admiration from us all, and we cannot bear to think of a very rich man being treated with disrespect." Moreover, the rich, through a subtle combination of agencies, educational, clerical, and political, clip the wings of the " new thought," and prove an insuperable obstacle to its nascent and altogether laudable aspirations. It is thus that, according to Mr. Bertrand Russell, they argue " in the unconscious depths of their souls " "Should the working man think freely about property ? Then what will become of us, the rich ? Should young men and young women think freely about sex ? Then what will b000me of morality ? Should soldiers think freely about war ? Then what will become of military discipline ? Away with thought I Baok into the stades of prejudice, lest property, morals, and war should be endangered! Better men should be stupid, slothful, and oppressive than that their thoughts should be free. For if their thoughts were free they might not think as we do. And at all costa this danger must be averted."

Mr. Bertrand Russell's dislike for the ministers of religion and for all who rise to influential positions, even in democratic America, is quite on a par with the feelings of animosity which he entertains against the rich. The clergy labour under two grievous defects. One is that they are conventionally, but quite erroneously, supposed to be " morn virtuous than other men." The other is that they derive benefits from endowments, and the possession of property "has a tendency to warp men's judgments as to the excellence of the institution " the Church). "These causes combine to damage the moral force of the Church." As to those who attain to positions of power and influ- ence, they are " men of abnormal ambition and thirst for dominion, combined with skill in cajolery and subtlety in negotiation." The description hardly seems to apply to such men as William Wilberforce or John Bright. Mr. Bertrand Russell, however, appears wholly to ignore the fact that, certainly in the case of Englishmen, a strong sense of duty and an ardent desire to rectify abuses are amongst the most potent incentives to action leading to the acquisition of power. These are not the only classes which come ander Mr. Bertrand Russell's lash. Historians, for instance, are described as " almost invariably sycophants."

To those who are familiar with the fantastic and somewhat mono- tonous literature of extreme Pacffieism, the few remarks which serve as a preface to Mr. Bertrand Russell's book afford a sure indication of what is to follow. Ells philosophy of politics has a metaphysical basis. He thinks that impulse rather than conscious purpose moulds the lives im= He divides impulses into two categories. The one is possessive. It aims at acquiring or retaining something which cannot be shared. The political embodiments of the possessive impulses are the State, by which Mr. Russell means not only the monstrous conception of the Treitschkes and Bornhardis of Germany but all States, war, and pro- perty. All these impulses are bad. The creative impulses tend to bring into the world some valuable thing in which there is no private property, such as education, marriage, and religion. All these impulses are good.

As to property, Mr. Russell makes very short work of it. It is an unmitigated evil. " The most glaring example is the private ownership of land."

In respect to the war, Mr. Russell's views aro such as might be ex- pected. " The mood in which Germany embarked in the war was abominable, but it was a mood fostered by the habitual mood of England." We possessed colonies, wealth, and power. Germany wanted all three. What, therefore, could be more noble and sagacious than that we should transfer a large portion of our colonies, our wealth, and our power to the Germans ? Then war would have been avoided, But we foolishly adopted another course. " By our resistance we showed that we shared their [the Germans'] standard." Similarly, it may be urged that no one need run tho risk of hding his house broken into.

He has only to hand out of the window to the burglar the silver plate which the latter covets, and the matter will be amicably settled. If he fails to do so, he places himself on the same moral level as the housebreaker.

It is not, however, even now too late to act on Mr. Bertrand Russell's principles. The only way to end the war permanently is by establishing a World Federation. The military functions of this Federation must be exercised by one State alone. Why should not this State bo Germany ? The British have established a Pax Britannica in India. Is it not perfectly reasonable that the Germans should establish a

Pax Germanica in Europe ?

Turning to the products of the creative impulses, their enumeration inspires, at first sight, a hope that a ray of rational thought will illumine the Serbonian bog of questionable metaphysics through which we have been led in dealing with those impulses which are possessive. But any such hope is speedily dashed to the ground when better acquaintance is gained of Mr. Russell's views on education, marriage, and religion.

As regards education, the discipline now exercised at schools is an evil. The only kind of discipline which is to bo commended is " the kind which comes from within, which consists in the power of pursuing a distant object steadily." In other words, every schoolboy is to bo a law unto himself. The main thing in denting with the young is to

"rouse and stimulate the love of mental adventure." They are to take

no heed of the learning and experience of the past. They are to be taught to fix their gaze exclnively on tho future as illuminated by the "new thought," which is to dominate the world. Above all, it is

wholly inadvisable that a child should bo taught any religions creed. It does not so muoh matter whether the particular creed is true or false. " What is amiss is the mere existence of creed." Further, one of the first steps to be taken in the direction of educational reform is to " sub- mit all teaching of history to an international Commission, which should produce neutral text-books free from patriotic bias." We may all be allowed to cherish the hope that we shall not personally be brought in contact with any of the detestable infants who will infallibly be the products of Mr. Bertrand Russell's ideal seminaries for prigs.

As regards marriage, Mr. Russell gives a different signification to the word from that which is usually understood. " There is no reason to demand or expect a lifelong stability, or to exact any ground for divorce beyond mutual consent. This would make it possible for the women who must at present remain unmarried to have children if they wished it." Mr. Bertrand Russell makes the very sound remark that a union which is merely based on instinct and is not enriched by the life of the spirit cannot lead to thorough conjugal happiness, The reasons he gives for advocating this principle are, however,

rather quaint. They inspire the suspicion that he has a strong

predilection for residence in some central portion either of London or some other big town, for ho more especially commends the life of the spirit to dwellers in the suburbs :— " The romantic view of marriage, in which our fathers and mothers professed to believe, will not survive an imaginative peregrination down a street of suburban villas, each containing its couple. . . . The separate- ness and stuffiness, the fine names for cowardices and timid vanities, that are shut within the four walls of thousands upon thousands of little villas, present themselves coldly and mercilessly to those in whom mind is dominant at the expense of spirit."

The war which is now being waged has, amongst many other disastrous consequences, at all events possessed this advantage, that it has knit not only the whole Anglo-Saxon race but its dependent subjects in bonds of close unity. The main object of all wise men now is to preserve this unity after the war ceases, and more especially to allay any re.

erudeseenee of class animosities. Was it necessary for Mr. Bertrand Russell, at such a moment as this, in order to give wings to the " new thought," to write a work in which he says that " co-operation between the defenders of the old and the champions of the new has beaome almost impossible," and that "the practice of oppression affords pleasure to the governing classes," and which, from cover to cover, is one long incentive to the continuance of class hatred Moreover, although it is of course useless to appeal to Mr. Bertrand Russell on the ground of patriotism, it may be asked whether it is truthful or right on the part of a cultivated man who, if he chose, could easily acquire a knowledge of the real facts, to include his own country amongst those States who devote themselves to " the successful exploitation of weak or uncivilized countries " ? The fellaheen of the Nile Valley, who have been relieved from Turkish oppression; the inhabitants of the vast Sudan, whose tranquillity during the present crisis has been due not to the use of force but to the confidence inspired by good government; the loyal -addresses which have emanated from many of the Princes of Central Africa; the fact that the Sikh and Gurkha have willingly laid down • their lives to support the cause of their alien rulers—all testify that the statement is a calumny.

Moreover, it may very pertinently be asked whether the " now thoughts " of Mr. Bertrand Russell are, after all. so very new. In his

last chapter, entitled "What We Can Do," he defines the general principles on which he wishes us to act. They are as follows :-

" 1. The growth and vitality of individuals and communities is to be promoted as far as possible. 2. The growth of one individual or one community is to bo as Ytle as possible at the expense of another."

The first of these two principles does not appear to be of stiti, big originality, whilst the novelty of the second has been somewhat impaired by the fact that for many a long year almost every child of British parents has been taught by the Church Catechism to love his neighbour as himself and to do unto others as he would wish that they should do unto him.

Mr. Bertrand Russell has written a thoroughly mischievous book, and it is all the more mischievous because, being a cultivated man, he has at his service a felicitous literary style which may possess some attractions for the unwary minds of prejudiced partisans and loose