ultimate laws of human nature. These laws are at all times the same, but the conditions necessary for their operation did not exist, or very imperfectly existed, in archaic society. Political economy requires competition, and is hopelessly embarrassed by custom. Competition implies free individual action, and such action is unknown under the clan regime. The conclusions of political economy are universally true, but only on the assumption that a certain state of society is present, and that certain beliefs and motives are absent. What can political economy do with a Chinaman, who, for the sake of posthumous worship of himself and his ancestors, is willing to be hanged for the sum of £33? "It is difficult," says Mr. Lyall,[1] "to deal with a holy man whose disciples are ready to bury themselves alive if the Government puts pressure on their master for land-taxes, and thus to bring down a curse upon the whole administration. This is the Hindu method of excommunication, very effective still in Rajpútána, and not to be faced with impunity by the most powerful chief."
Similar observations apply in the case of ethics. The principles of right and wrong are immutable, but their application in dealings with other persons is different in different ages. Among archaic men the clan, or other association like the clan, forms to each individual his world. Within it his duties lie, and are recognized. Without it he acknowledges no more obligation towards other men than he does towards the inhabitants of another planet. It is unreasonable to blame men for not conforming to a standard which they never accepted, and of which they never heard. The theory of utility would have been altogether incomprehensible to our archaic forefathers. The theory of the moral sense would have been intelligible,
- ↑ Ed. Rev., cxliv., 198.
