MR. GALTON'S ARISTOCRACY.
MR. GALTON'S curious paper at the Anthropological Society on Tuesday presents at least an interesting proposal for the creation of a future aristocracy, if ever the Demos should take it into its head that democracy is dull, and wants the relief of some aristocracy to render it endurable to itself. And let it not be supposed that this is altogether an impossible supposition. "Liberty, fraternity, and equality" was unquestionably a formula fall of interest in an age when
liberty assumed the liberty of locking-up any one who did not do it homage, when fraternity was manifested by sending to the guillotine those who seemed to be too high for brotherhood, and when equality meant levelling down but not levelling up. But in such democracies as the American,—and that will be, we suppose, the type of the English democracy whenever the Peerage and its outworks go,—there is really felt the want of an aristocracy better than that of wealth ; and as there is none, the possession of wealth becomes the only basis of social distinction, though no one can say that this is a wholesome basis. We recommend, then, Mr. Galton's idea to the attention of the American democracy, which might add more to the variety, and therefore happiness, of life in the States by raising up an aristo- cracy founded to some extent on merit, than could be added to that happiness by any other device. Mr. Galton thinks that hereditary transmission is not so bad a basis of aristocracy after all, if only you guard it against abuse, not only by choosing your stocks carefully, but by taking guarantees that the many certain failures in the reproduction of the type of character chosen as the best, by virtue of the principle of inheritance, shall be excluded from the caste in question. Mr. Galton thinks that no one further removed than a grandson should be recognised at all as being even specially likely to inherit the qualities of the stock ennobled. He finds nephews much nearer than grandsons ; they reproduce, for example, much more nearly the physical stature of the ancestor; and he sees no reason to think that mental qualities are transmitted by any law different from that which transmits physical qualities. He finds that brothers are more likely to resemble a brother in person and character, than even a son. On the whole, be thinks that there are about a dozen near relatives of every great man amongst whom it might be fit to choose which of them should succeed him on his death as a representative of the aristocracy he can no longer represent ; and he would have the choice among those twelve made by some kind, of election from amongst them,—the electors, we understand, to be, not members of the aristocracy themselves, but rather members of the community whose value for certain discriminating qualities constitutes the tie between the aristocracy and the common people. Thus, to take an instance, suppose that the American people had elected Mr. Lowell a member of their aristocracy of virtue and talent. On Mr. Lowell's death, the sons, brothers, nephews, and grandsons of Mr. Lowell, to the number possibly of twelve, would be voted upon by some body well acquainted with the family, with the view of filling up his place by the man who should most nearly represent the influence of Mr. Lowell's character and talents. In the same way, on the death of President Lincoln or General Grant,—who may be supposed members of the American aristocracy,—that one of some twelve persons coming nearest to President Lincoln or General Grant in character, would be selected by all those who were thought best fitted to judge ; and the vacant place would thus be filled by the suffrages of the people out of the charmed circle of near relations. In this way, Mr. Galton thinks, we should at least exclude the poorer scions of a good stock, and probably be able to secure, if not representatives worthy of the original aristocrat of merit, at least a brother only half as far removed from him in respect to the probability of inheriting his charac- teristics as the son, or a nephew only half as far removed as the grandson, or possibly a grandson unusually resembling his grandfather. Farther, Mr. Galion suggests that when the wife of a man who, though not himself a member of the aristocracy of merit, is yet a man distinguished for good services, has in her some of the blood of the aristocracy of merit, then the kin of these should also be allowed to inherit their position in the com- munity on the lines of the same principles of inheritance.
Doubtless, if Mr. Galton's ideas should be adopted by any young community, there would be in the institutions so formed a genuine source of interest. In the first place, there would be the choosing of the various aristocratic stocks, and renewing them at every stage when the virtue of the stock first chosen
was regarded as lapsed, for Mr. Galton thinks it idle to suppose that any of the characteristic virtues of a stock survive, in an appreciable degree, the grandchild stage. In other words, so soon as heredity had exhausted all the brothers, sons, and nephews of the stock first chosen, Mr. Galton would have it renewed as the French Academy renew the occupants of their seats of honour.
Thus, not only would there always be, either on hand or looming in the distance, some delicate choice of intellectual, moral, or spiritual worth as a new stem of aristocratic honour,—a sort of
choice most interesting to a nation, and which might be made to fascinate the imagination of its youth with a noble ambition,— but when the new stock had been chosen, there would be, on the occasion of every death of the moral head of the family,—that is, the immediate bearer of the dignity,—a choice, amongst some dozen individuals, as to which of the kin was most worthy to fill up the vacancy. Perhaps we might point out to Mr. Galton that here would be the crux of his interesting scheme. In order to select well, amongst some ten or dozen members of a family, which of them best deserves the right to represent it as a centre of intellectual, moral, or spiritual aristo- cracy, these ten or dozen members must be well known to the electing body, who should also be disinterested in their choice. Now, where are men to find an electing body really tolerably familiar with some ten or a dozen members of a private family, and yet not likely to be influenced by their likes and dislikes, by mere favouritism and jealousy, in the choice ? A family council would be the only body likely to know the main facts of the case; but then, a family council would, of all conceivable bodies, be the least likely to judge disinterestedly for the com- munity, the least likely to be free from caprice and grudge and motives of petty intrigue in its choice. Yet any committee of selection not including members possessed of the family tradi- tions, would hardly have the elements of judgment. Imagine a family council met to decide which of the Peels, for instance, had the most right to uphold the reputation of the great Sir Robert, —would it have fixed on the present Speaker ? Or, conceive a family council held to pick from amongst the Cannings the man best fitted to sustain the political daring and the reputation for wit which distinguished the great statesman,—would the choice have fallen on the statesman of the Mutiny, or the great diplomatist, or rather upon some very insignificant member of the family ? Or, conceive a council of Wilberforces held to select the representative of the late Bishop of Winchester among the aristocracy of the day,—should we have had the injudicious author of the " Memoirs " or the present Bishop of Newcastle seated in the seat of the astute and eloquent Prelate P It is certainly a difficult thing to conceive how the electing body should be chosea so as to command as much family knowledge as is desirable, and yet be free from personal ties. But all this illustrates how much real social and moral interest there might be found in selecting the true representatives of an aris- tocracy of merit, while the first selection of the stock would be a public event of very great interest, which we can easily con- ceive creating greater interest,—interest of a much more varied kind,—than a Presidential Election. Assuredly, the British nation, if any sort of representative council could have been chosen, would have delighted a few years ago in raising General Gordon to the moral peerage of the nation ; again, in raising Lord Shaftesbury to it, if he had not been already in its ranks ; in raising Sir Walter Scott to the same rank, on intellectual as well as moral grounds, some sixty or seventy years ago ; and in placing the Duke of Wellington there probably long before the Battle of Waterloo. No doubt, both Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli would have been distinguished in this way twenty-five years ago at least ; and Tennyson certainly would have been enrolled among our aristocracy of merit long before he was enrolled amongst the aristocracy of rank. The only doubt we have as to Mr. Galton's ingenious scheme is as to the choice of the proper moral successor. We have not always been fortunate in the lineal successors of great men ; but should we have been more fortunate if we had had their successors elected from amongst the ten or twelve nearest representatives by a committee of selection ? We can only hope that the United States may at once send for Mr. Galton to initiate his system in that great country, and to found there an aristocracy of merit to supersede the great stockjobbeis who have created a plutocracy in the place of an aristocracy, and so to lend the stimulus of mental, moral, and spiritual competition to the various interests—some nobler and some meaner—of the great Republic.
Previous page
