And first, as to the connection between class distinctions and difference of social function. History does not tell us whether there was ever a time in which all men were equal, but we do seem to find that, broadly speaking, the differentiation of society into classes has followed the lines of its differentiation into different functions or employments. Leaving out the disturbing influence of conquest, we see that the general lines of division between classes coincide with the general lines of division between function in the community. One strong instance of this we find in the feudal system, under which the distinctions between classes and employments were strongly marked, and which is defined as meaning "property held as a reward or in consideration of special services."' The propertied class was then, theoretically at least, the class which rendered special service to the State; and, speaking broadly, both the property and responsibility were hereditary.

Again, it is worth noticing that our so-called "middle class" is a comparatively modern growth, and corresponds to a development of the professions and of the organizing branches of industry.

But the most marked illustration of the coincidence of class and employment is to be seen where we find the social arrangement known as caste. The essence of caste, apart from its religious significance, is, that certain functions are committed to certain classes, and that these functions are to a greater or less extent hereditary, so that members of the same family continue to follow the same occupation from generation to generation.

We may say then, that in the past at any rate difference of class has largely depended upon difference of function or employment.

Now if we could find a society in which every one followed the same employment, and in which there was also no distinction of classes, we should have a striking corroboration of the view that the two depend upon each other. A society with literally no difference of employment would perhaps be an impossibility, but we get as near to it as we can in the modern state of Bulgaria. The people of Bulgaria are essentially a race of peasant proprietors, and form a society which is almost homogeneous. The one exceptional class is that of the State officials, the civil service; but this service is itself recruited from the peasant class and shares its characteristics. With this one exception there seems to be no opening whatever for educated people, and the question has been seriously raised, whether it is of any use to educate, beyond the most elementary stage, boys who have nothing before them but the career of the professional politician or the meager life of the peasant. What that life is we may gather from . . . Dicey's "The Peasant State." . . .

It seems clear, then, that without going so far as to say that differences of employment are the cause of class distinction, or vice versa, we are safe in assuming that there is some close connection between them, and that a society which lacks the one is likely to be deficient in the other.

Perhaps the most important characteristic in which we differ from more ancient forms of society lies in the fact that functions and employments are no longer hereditary in any strict sense of the term. It will of course always remain natural, that other things being equal, a father should teach his son his own trade; and thus there will always be a tendency for families to continue in the same employment. But there is no longer any artificial barrier erected by tradition and custom, and it is possible for any boy on leaving school, if his intelligence is not below the average, to choose among a dozen different occupations. This possibility of choice, i.e., of adapting the occupation of the boy to his individual disposition and capacity, instead of forcing him into the same groove as his ancestors, is of the utmost importance. Plato laid stress upon it in his conception of the ideal State, which was to be organized as a system of classes, based upon difference of function, wherein each man was to do that which he was best fitted by nature to do.

There is probably no way in which it can be ensured beyond fail, that a man shall do what he is best fitted to do; some spend their lives in looking for their vocation and die without finding it. But it is clear that all will have a better chance in a complex society offering many different openings, than in a simpler one such as Bulgaria, where all members are more on a level, and where there is little variety offered. We find a similar contrast between developed countries with fully differentiated occupations, and new countries where there is as yet little demand for anything but manual labor. In the latter there is no career for the weakly or intellectual; those whose nature and disposition might have found full satisfaction, are in a double sense "out of place" in a primitive society.

And together with this opening up of employments to all the members of a community we find the simultaneous process going on of the breaking down of class barriers. . . .

This means of course an immense widening to the scope of ambition. Professor Cunningham points out ("Growth of English Industry and Commerce," page 410) that the old Burgess society "had this striking characteristic, that the ordinary object of ambition was not so much that of rising out of one's grade, but of standing well in that grade; the citizen did not aim at being a knight, but at being warden and master of his guild, or alderman and mayor of his town. For good or evil we have but little sympathy with these humble ambitions; every one desires to rise in the world himself, and the philanthropic construct social ladders by which the poorest child may rise to the highest ranks, as was done by ecclesiastics in the Middle Ages."

That this breaking down of artificial barriers must in the long run be for good, we can hardly doubt. Man is naturally progressive, both in his wants and in his aspirations; and by the very law of his being, must always - if only left to himself - be seeking after new interests, new plans, new ambitions. But if no interests are there, if the means to carry out his plans are wanting, if his ambitions are thwarted and held in check by custom and tradition, he will never break through the lower circle of desires and satisfactions, which we share with the brutes, and progress will be impossible.

In this progressiveness of the human being we find one reason for those differences in the Standard of Life which we are trying to understand. Not all have yet worked out their freedom from the lower range of desires; for these, satisfaction of the appetites means only renewed opportunity for the repeated satisfaction of the appetites. Of those again who have set their hopes on pressing forward, who see before them a universe of desirable things to be mastered, some have outstripped others and lead the way. In their advance lies the chief hope for those behind: the sight of better things attainable is the chief spur to men to raise their own standard, to seek for themselves and their children advantages for which they would otherwise care nothing.

Another reason for differences in the standard, and one still more in the nature of things than the former, is to be found in the different conditions under which varying kinds of work must be carried on. The scholar eats much less than the artisan who goes through great physical exertion, but he needs instead greater warmth and quiet; just as their tools must always be different, steel and iron for the one and books for the other, so also their standards must differ in kind as regards the surroundings in which they live. That one or the other may cost more in terms of money is a matter of accident, and may indeed tell hardly upon the one who is generally supposed to be in a better position. The young clerk, who earns no more than the artisan, but must wear a black coat; and the governess, whose scanty earnings must provide evening dress, know well enough that the difference in the standard is not in their favor; but the obligation to "dress according" is one which is fully recognized by the working-class, and will always be accepted as a reason why John the clerk should contribute less to the family expenses than Tom the carpenter.

In the mere fact, then, of differences of standard, apart from accidental accompaniments of which we may hope in time to free ourselves, we have both the condition and consequence of vitality and progress in a nation. And indeed we find that what really practical reformers are working for is not to bring about greater uniformity, but to get rid of certain definite disadvantages to which people of certain classes or occupations are subjected. . . . To sum up briefly:

1.  Every man (above the lowest residuum) has a Standard of Life, by which, consciously or unconsciously, he orders his life, and estimates its success or failure.

2.  The standard in England of to-day is the same for all to a certain extent, and in certain fundamental but less obvious facts; but it is essentially progressive, and in more obvious ways it varies greatly from class to class, and according to differences of occupation.

3.  These differences do not involve any essential incapacity on the part of any class to raise and maintain its own standard, and therefore every class, as every individual, has both the right and the duty to fix its standard as high as it can attain, there being no limits which are more proper for one* class than another.

4.  The well-being, moral and economical, of any man or class will be for the most part determined by the standard which he accepts, and for this reason we might formulate this practical ideal for individuals: That every man should aim at giving his children at least as high a standard as his own, and as good an opportunity of realizing it. And that this is not an unnecessary matter to urge, may be witnessed by the fact that large numbers of our very poor are unskilled laborers whose fathers were skilled artisans.